On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 04:17:24PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 07:00:22AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Definitely not FW_BUG. The field is reserved *now*; it would be > > legitimate for a new version of the BGRT spec to define one of those > > bits for something else. > > Which would mean that booting old kernels on new FW which defines those > reserved bits would cause that warning to fire erroneously. Not erroneously; those bits could potentially indicate some status condition we don't know about, so we need to assume we can't handle the table if a bit we don't understand is set. (Specs like this should really do what ext4 does, and define whether a given set of currently undefined bits are optional or mandatory; as in, if you don't understand them, can you proceed or should you stop?) > So then we probably don't need it at all or we need to check implemented > BGRT version of the FW running to know which bits are defined by the > spec and which are reserved... > > Also, does the spec really say that reserved bits must be zero? Or it > doesn't specify their value? The spec says those bits of the status field are reserved and must be zero. - Josh Triplett -- 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
