I should warn you that FADT version numbers are notoriously unreliable; In fact, in ACPICA we were eventually forced to abandon them entirely. We use the actual size of the FADT instead. Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: Hanjun Guo [mailto:hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 5:14 AM > To: Mark Rutland > Cc: Catalin Marinas; Rafael J. Wysocki; graeme.gregory@xxxxxxxxxx; Arnd > Bergmann; Olof Johansson; grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx; Sudeep Holla; Will > Deacon; Jason Cooper; Marc Zyngier; Bjorn Helgaas; Daniel Lezcano; Mark > Brown; Rob Herring; Robert Richter; Zheng, Lv; Moore, Robert; Lorenzo > Pieralisi; Liviu Dudau; Randy Dunlap; Charles Garcia-Tobin; linux- > acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linaro-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/18] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse FADT table to get PSCI > flags for PSCI init > > On 2014-8-19 19:10, Mark Rutland wrote: > >>>> @@ -47,6 +49,26 @@ void __init __acpi_unmap_table(char *map, unsigned > long size) > >>>> early_memunmap(map, size); > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> +static int __init acpi_parse_fadt(struct acpi_table_header *table) > >>>> +{ > >>>> + struct acpi_table_fadt *fadt = (struct acpi_table_fadt > *)table; > >>>> + > >>>> + /* > >>>> + * Revision in table header is the FADT Major version, > >>>> + * and there is a minor version of FADT which was introduced > >>>> + * by ACPI 5.1, we only deal with ACPI 5.1 or higher version > >>>> + * to get arm boot flags, or we will disable ACPI. > >>>> + */ > >>>> + if (table->revision < 5 || fadt->minor_revision < 1) { > >>> > >>> If we ever get revision 6.0, this would trigger. > >> > >> Yes, good catch, actually I already fixed that in my local git repo, > >> > >> + if (table->revision > 5 || > >> + (table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision >= 1)) { > >> + return 0; > >> + } else { > >> + pr_info("FADT revision is %d.%d, no PSCI support, > >> + should be 5.1 > >> or higher\n", > >> + table->revision, fadt->minor_revision); > >> + disable_acpi(); > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> + } > > > > Given you return in the first path, you don't need the remaining code > > to live in an else block. > > Agreed, I will update it, and move disable_acpi() outside this function > and keep it in one place as Sudeep suggested. > > Thanks > Hanjun -- 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
