On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Linda Knippers <linda.knippers@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 6/5/2017 4:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > <snip> > >>> I talked to our FW team and we do generate checksums and not a zero for >>> at >>> least some >>> of the AML. Please revert this change until you can also validate >>> a checksum. Or shall I post a patch to remove the check? >> >> >> I'll skip this patch, no need to do anything else. Thanks for your >> report! > > > Thanks. This patch is already in as of 4.12rc1 and not part of the most > recent > ACPICA drop. Ah, OK. I should have checked I guess. :-) Anyway, I'll revert it, then. >> Bob, can you revert this upstream, please? It looks like the >> assumption it is based on doesn't hold. > > Bob, I'm happy to test something if there is a new patch that looks for zero > or a valid checksum. TBH, I'm not 100% certain that our checksums are > correct because nothing has ever tried to verify them. Well, that's part of the problem here I guess. If they have never been tested, they cannot be trusted. Still, the commit in question clearly assumed that value to always be 0 and it clearly is not the case here. 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
