On 12/10/15 20:25, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, October 12, 2015 10:44:52 AM Sudeep Holla wrote:
[...]
Instead of just removing the check completely on x86, IMO restrict it to some newer/later version of ACPI so you can still force vendors to fix their ACPI tables at-least in future.No, we can't force vendors to fix their ACPI tables. This is completely unrealistic.
No, I was referring to the future platforms *only*
We simly need to deal with the bugs in the ACPI tables in the kernel.
Yes sadly true for existing systems, but if we now place a check for ACPIv6.0 and above, we might avoid seeing such broken tables sometime in future once the kernel with this check in place is used for validation.
It would be good to get such sanity check in the tools used to build those tables, but yes since such static tables can be built in many ways, its difficult to deal it in all those tools.As I said to Al, we need those checks in firmware test suites. Having them in the kernel is OK too, but they should cause warnings to be printed to the kernel log instead of causing the kernel to panic.
Agreed -- Regards, Sudeep -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|