Hi, Len, Robert,
Please help to check the following patch, add more conditions
when validate the 64bit 32bit FACS/DSDT address in FADT to follow ACPI
spec, In the meantime, keep the compatibility and latitude.
Thanks,
Ethan
>From c1116211a7b329c26b0370565c36b084ceb08f71 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: ethan.zhao <ethan.ker...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:21:12 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 642/642] To follow the ACPI spec 3,4&5 and keep the
compatibility and latitude,only
output mismatch warning when 64bit address and 32bit address of
FACS/DSDT are all
valid but not equal to each other.
Signed-off-by: ethan.zhao <ethan.ker...@gmail.com>
---
drivers/acpi/acpica/tbfadt.c | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbfadt.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbfadt.c
index 3906518..f23f512 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbfadt.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbfadt.c
@@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ static void acpi_tb_validate_fadt(void)
* the 32-bit and 64-bit address fields
(FIRMWARE_CTRL/X_FIRMWARE_CTRL and
* DSDT/X_DSDT) would indicate the presence of two FACS or two
DSDT tables.
*/
- if (acpi_gbl_FADT.facs &&
+ if ((acpi_gbl_FADT.facs && acpi_gbl_FADT.Xfacs) &&
(acpi_gbl_FADT.Xfacs != (u64)acpi_gbl_FADT.facs)) {
ACPI_BIOS_WARNING((AE_INFO,
"32/64X FACS address mismatch in FADT - "
@@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ static void acpi_tb_validate_fadt(void)
acpi_gbl_FADT.Xfacs = (u64)acpi_gbl_FADT.facs;
}
- if (acpi_gbl_FADT.dsdt &&
+ if ((acpi_gbl_FADT.dsdt && acpi_gbl_FADT.Xdsdt) &&
(acpi_gbl_FADT.Xdsdt != (u64)acpi_gbl_FADT.dsdt)) {
ACPI_BIOS_WARNING((AE_INFO,
"32/64X DSDT address mismatch in FADT - "
--
1.7.1
To-follow-the-ACPI-spec-3-4-5-and-keep-the-compatibi.patch
Description: Binary data
