On 6/5/2017 4:55 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
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.
Hi Rafael, Is this still in the queue to be reverted?
I see it's still in rc5 but it really needs to go before 4.12 is released.
We've been broken since rc1.
Thanks,
-- ljk
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
