On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 01:57 +0800, Matthew Garrett wrote: > The reset register was only introduced with version 2 of the FADT, so we > should check that the FADT revision before trusting its contents. > does the current code break anything? I'm curious about how you found this bug. :) thanks, rui > Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/acpi/reboot.c | 5 +++++ > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/reboot.c b/drivers/acpi/reboot.c > index 4870aaa..a6c77e8b 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/reboot.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/reboot.c > @@ -15,6 +15,11 @@ void acpi_reboot(void) > > rr = &acpi_gbl_FADT.reset_register; > > + /* ACPI reset register was only introduced with v2 of the FADT */ > + > + if (acpi_gbl_FADT.header.revision < 2) > + return; > + > /* Is the reset register supported? The spec says we should be > * checking the bit width and bit offset, but Windows ignores > * these fields */ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
