[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904012357050.4657@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:15:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Michael K. Johnson" <johnsonm@...th.com>,
Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
Jordan Hargrave <Jordan_Hargrave@...l.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86 setup BIOS workarounds
> + /* ACPI 3.0 added the extended flags support. If bit 0
> + in the extended flags is zero, we're supposed to simply
> + ignore the entry -- a backwards incompatible change! */
> + if (size > 20 && !(buf.ext_flags & 1))
> + continue;
At the risk of rushing to the defense of the ACPI spec...
This does not look like a backwards incompatible change to me.
In ACPI 2.0, size of 20 is always returned, and it would
be a Linux bug if we examined the undefined values after byte 19.
In ACPI 3.0, byte 20 is now defined. So if the BIOS returns
a size >= 21, we are permitted to examine byte 20.
So I agree with the test above, but I do not agree with the comment.
thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists