linux-kernel - Re: Sony Vaio VGN-SZ340 (was Re: sonypc with Sony Vaio VGN-SZ1VP)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45A6979A.8030000@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:01:30 +0300
From:	Alexey Starikovskiy <alexey.y.starikovskiy@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
CC:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
	MoRpHeUz <morpheuz@...il.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Stelian Pop <stelian@...ies.net>,
	Mattia Dongili <malattia@...ux.it>,
	Ismail Donmez <ismail@...dus.org.tr>,
	Andrea Gelmini <gelma@...ma.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Cacy Rodney <cacy-rodney-cacy@...n.pl>
Subject: Re: Sony Vaio VGN-SZ340 (was Re: sonypc with Sony Vaio VGN-SZ1VP)

Len Brown wrote:
> On Friday 05 January 2007 23:09, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>   
>> On Friday 05 January 2007 11:10, Len Brown wrote:
>>     
>>> On Friday 05 January 2007 12:24, MoRpHeUz wrote:
>>>       
>>>>> What workaround are you using?
>>>>>           
>>>>  This one: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7465
>>>>         
>>> Ah yes, the duplicate MADT issue is clearly a BIOS bug.
>>> It is possible that we can tweak our Linux workaround for it to be more
>>> Microsoft Windows Bug Compatbile(TM).
>>>       
>> Maybe Windows discovers processors using the namespace rather
>> than the MADT.
>>     
>
> Nod.
>
> Based on the fact that the 1st MADT on this box is toast, they're not using that.
> If the last one also doesn't work universally, then they must be using the namespace.
>
> For us to do the same would be a relatively significant change -- as it means
> we either have to push SMP startup after the interpreter init, or move the
> interpreter init yet sooner.
>
> In general, over the last couple of years, we've been forced for compatibility
> with various systems to move ACPI initialization sooner and sooner.
> (I think the last issue was getting the HW into "ACPI mode" sooner
>  because some stuff I don't recall didn't work if we didn't)
> It would probably make sense to experiment with what the soonest we
> can initialize ACPI, as I have a feeling we're going to have to head that way.
>
> -Len
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>   

If any of the two tables does not work, may be we need both together?

Regards,
    Alex.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/