On 02/06/17 17:44, Phil Dennis-Jordan wrote: > On 31 January 2017 at 20:08, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 01/31/17 19:17, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 05:28:57PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>>> The ACPI 6.1 spec says, >>>> >>>> - DSDT: [...] If the X_DSDT field contains a non-zero value then this >>>> field must be zero. >>>> - X_DSDT: [...] If the DSDT field contains a non-zero value then this >>>> field must be zero. >>> >>> But that's only 6.1. 6.0 and earlier did not say this. >>> The errata they wanted to address was: >>> 1393 In FADT: if X_DSDT field is non-zero, DSDT >>> field should be ignored or deprecated >>> >>> I would class this as a spec bug. >>> >> >> Process-wise, that's not a bad idea; it could be the only way (or the >> best way) to argue for a corresponding change in edk2's >> EFI_ACPI_TABLE_PROTOCOL implementation >> (MdeModulePkg/Universal/Acpi/AcpiTableDxe). >> >> Do you want to raise this on the ASWG list? I vaguely recall that you >> subscribed; if not, I think you should be able to, as a Red Hatter >> <http://members.uefi.org/kmembership_info/person_signup/>. >> >> (I'd like to avoid being the middle man.) >> >> Hm... It seems that the "Adopter Membership" is free, which could be >> appropriate for individual observers: >> >> http://uefi.org/join >> http://members.uefi.org/home/ >> >> (Should Phil consider it.) > > To be honest, I have no idea - does the revelation of 5.1b's > introduction of the mutual exclusivity, and the fact that you've > written up an edk2 patch change anything? If my signing up for > membership will help with resolving the problem, I'm happy to do it, > I'm just lacking the context to know if this is the case - please let > me know.
I'm neither encouraging you to, nor discouraging you from, joining the ASWG :) I just wanted to share the details that I managed to find, should you want to join the ASWG in order to (co-)champion the question (with Michael). For example, elsewhere you mention that Windows 10 "insist[s] on both DSDT and X_DSDT" [1]. That is somewhat in conflict with the most recent spec requirements that both fields be exclusive... If you've seen this happen first hand, that can be a strong argument to make. [1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2017-February/007072.html Thanks, Laszlo
