On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 11:52:48PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> ACPI tables may comprise either RSDT, XSDT, or both. The current code fails
> to check the presence of the RSDT table before accessing it. This leads to
> an exception if the RSDT table is not provided.
>
> The XSDT table takes precedence over the RSDT table.
>
> The return values of list_rsdt() and list_rsdp() are always zero and not
> checked. Remove the return values.
>
> Addresses in the XSDT table are 64-bit. Adjust the output accordingly.
>
> As the RSDT table has to be ignored if the XSDT command is present there is
> no need to compare the tables in a display command. Anyway the
> specification does not require that the sequence of addresses in the RSDT
> and XSDT table are the same.
>
> The FACS table header does not provide revision information. Correct the
> description of dump_hdr().
>
> Adjust the ACPI test to match the changed output format of the 'acpi list'
> command.
(Side question: Do you use --histogram when preparing patches? if no, try it.)
...
> + if (rsdp->xsdt_address) {
> + if (!xsdt->entry[i])
> + break;
> + hdr = map_sysmem(xsdt->entry[i], 0);
> + } else {
> + if (!rsdt->entry[i])
> + break;
> + hdr = map_sysmem(rsdt->entry[i], 0);
> + }
With a help of temporary variable this can be rewritten as
tmp = 0; // or NULL, I haven't checked the type.
if (rsdp->xsdt_address)
tmp = xsdt->entry[i];
else
tmp = rsdt->entry[i];
if (!tmp)
break;
hdr = map_sysmem(tmp, 0);
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
