On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 03:26:23 PM Al Stone wrote:
> Looking across multiple versions of the ACPI specification, certain
> versions introduce new revision numbers for the FADT and/or MADT
> tables. So, for example, an FADT indicating it is revision 4 should
> not be paired with an MADT revision of anything less than 2.
>
> However, there are systems out there that do not update the revision
> fields in the FADT and MADT tables as they should. So, for arm64, we
> can be stricter in complying with the specification, but we need to
> relax the checking for legacy systems.
>
> Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/tables.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/tables.c b/drivers/acpi/tables.c
> index e5cfd72..3b5ddfb 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/tables.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/tables.c
> @@ -407,9 +407,17 @@ static int __init bad_madt_entry(struct acpi_table_header *table,
> ms++;
> }
> if (!ms->num_types) {
> - pr_err("undefined version for either FADT %d.%d or MADT %d\n",
> - major, minor, madt->header.revision);
> - return 1;
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64)) {
> + /* Enforce this stricture on arm64... */
> + pr_err("undefined version for either FADT %d.%d or MADT %d\n",
> + major, minor, madt->header.revision);
> + return 1;
> + } else {
> + /* ... but relax it on legacy systems so they boot */
> + pr_warn("undefined version for either FADT %d.%d or MADT %d\n",
> + major, minor, madt->header.revision);
> + return 0;
Same comment as for the [1/4] applies here.
> + }
> }
>
> if (entry->type >= ms->num_types) {
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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
