[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56165701.90402@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 19:44:01 +0800
From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
To: kernel test robot <ying.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>
CC: lkp@...org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [lkp] [ACPI] 7494b07eba: Kernel panic - not syncing: Watchdog
detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 0
On 10/08/2015 11:21 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
> commit 7494b07ebaae2117629024369365f7be7adc16c3 ("ACPI: add in a bad_madt_entry() function to eventually replace the macro")
>
> [ 0.000000] ACPI: undefined MADT subtable type for FADT 4.0: 127 (length 12)
Seems that the MADT table contains reserved subtable type (0x7F),
so this is traded as a wrong type in our patch.
> [ 0.000000] ACPI: Error parsing LAPIC address override entry
This was called by early_acpi_parse_madt_lapic_addr_ovr() in
arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c, which is scanning MADT for the first
time when booting, so it will fail the boot process when finding
the reserved MADT subtable type.
> [ 0.000000] ACPI: Invalid BIOS MADT, disabling ACPI
As the spec said in Table 5-46 (ACPI 6.0):
0x10-0x7F Reserved. OSPM skips structures of the reserved type.
Should we just ignore those reserved type when scanning the MADT
table? In the patch "ACPI: add in a bad_madt_entry() function to
eventually replace the macro", we just trade it as wrong, that's
why we failed to boot the system.
Thanks
Hanjun
--
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