[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100512135843.GA5686@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 09:58:43 -0400
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gpxe-devel@...erboot.org,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [LKML] Re: [PATCH 1/2] ibft: Update iBFT handling for v1.03 of
the spec.
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 01:26:59AM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
>
> > #define IBFT_SIGN "iBFT"
> ...
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > + /*
> > + * One spec says "IBFT", the other says "iBFT". We have to check
> > + * for both.
> > + */
>
> Really?
> Which one do you see in the field?
The one machine I do remember seeing this in the ACPI tables was the IBM
HS20, but I can't remember which one it was. Mike, Peter - any
recollection? Don't know about about Intel ones.
For cases where there was no ACPI, the 'iBFT' was definitly the string I saw.
> any reason to #define "iBFT" above and not use it below?
>
> > + if (!ibft_addr)
> > + acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_IBFT, acpi_find_ibft);
> > + if (!ibft_addr)
> > + acpi_table_parse("iBFT", acpi_find_ibft);
Could definitly use the IBFT_SIGN here.
Thanks for taking a look!
--
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