linux-kernel - Re: ACPI WARNING: at drivers/acpi/tables/tbfadt.c:348 acpi_tb_create_local

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

Message-ID: <487F3AFA.7090908@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:28:42 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
CC:	robert.moore@...el.com, Andrew Paprocki <andrew@...iboo.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ACPI WARNING: at	drivers/acpi/tables/tbfadt.c:348	acpi_tb_create_local_fadt+0x147/0x2f4()

Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The question is just if the hardware is really 8 bits or if the table
>> is not just wrong. What does lspci say?
> 
> What would lspci have to do with this? 

When it's an chipset with available data sheets one could check that.

> /proc/acpi/fadt (from an older
> kernel if the new one fails to come up) would seem to help somewhat,
> as that would allow comparing the v1 (byte-width) and v2 (bit-width)
> values - if they're out of sync (and they likely are if the system worked
> flawlessly with previous kernels), I'd be certain the tables are wrong.

Ok, but we can just get that from a table dump.

-Andi

--
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/