| Message ID | 1437705690-3272-1-git-send-email-alex.hung@canonical.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
On 24/07/15 03:41, Alex Hung wrote: > In coming ACPI spec, DSDT pointer should be zero if X_DSDT > is non-zero. Current firmware implementation allows DSDT == X_DSDT. > Therefore, both checks are both valid in FWTS. > > Signed-off-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung@canonical.com> > --- > src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c b/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c > index baa1bf8..abacdb5 100644 > --- a/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c > +++ b/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c > @@ -123,25 +123,33 @@ static void acpi_table_check_fadt_dsdt( > const fwts_acpi_table_fadt *fadt, > bool *passed) > { > - if (fadt->dsdt == 0) { > - *passed = false; > - fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, > - "FADTDSTNull", > - "FADT DSDT address is null."); > - } > > - if (fadt->header.length >= 148) { > - if (fadt->x_dsdt == 0) { > + if (fadt->header.length < 148) { > + if (fadt->dsdt == 0) { > *passed = false; > fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, > - "FADTXDSTDNull", > - "FADT X_DSDT address is null."); > - fwts_advice(fw, > - "An ACPI 2.0 FADT is being used however " > - "the 64 bit X_DSDT is null." > - "The kernel will fall back to using " > - "the 32 bit DSDT pointer instead."); > - } else if ((uint64_t)fadt->dsdt != fadt->x_dsdt) { > + "FADTDSDTNull", > + "FADT DSDT address is null."); > + } > + } else { > + if (fadt->x_dsdt == 0) { > + if (fadt->dsdt == 0) { > + *passed = false; > + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, > + "FADTXDSDTNull", > + "FADT X_DSDT and DSDT address are null."); > + } else { > + *passed = false; > + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, > + "FADTXDSDTNull", > + "FADT X_DSDT address is null."); > + fwts_advice(fw, > + "An ACPI 2.0 FADT is being used however " > + "the 64 bit X_DSDT is null." > + "The kernel will fall back to using " > + "the 32 bit DSDT pointer instead."); > + } > + } else if ((uint64_t)fadt->dsdt != fadt->x_dsdt && fadt->dsdt != 0) { > *passed = false; > fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, > "FADT32And64Mismatch", > Acked-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
On 2015年07月24日 10:41, Alex Hung wrote: > In coming ACPI spec, DSDT pointer should be zero if X_DSDT > is non-zero. Current firmware implementation allows DSDT == X_DSDT. > Therefore, both checks are both valid in FWTS. > > Signed-off-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung@canonical.com> > --- > src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c b/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c > index baa1bf8..abacdb5 100644 > --- a/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c > +++ b/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c > @@ -123,25 +123,33 @@ static void acpi_table_check_fadt_dsdt( > const fwts_acpi_table_fadt *fadt, > bool *passed) > { > - if (fadt->dsdt == 0) { > - *passed = false; > - fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, > - "FADTDSTNull", > - "FADT DSDT address is null."); > - } > > - if (fadt->header.length >= 148) { > - if (fadt->x_dsdt == 0) { > + if (fadt->header.length < 148) { > + if (fadt->dsdt == 0) { > *passed = false; > fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, > - "FADTXDSTDNull", > - "FADT X_DSDT address is null."); > - fwts_advice(fw, > - "An ACPI 2.0 FADT is being used however " > - "the 64 bit X_DSDT is null." > - "The kernel will fall back to using " > - "the 32 bit DSDT pointer instead."); > - } else if ((uint64_t)fadt->dsdt != fadt->x_dsdt) { > + "FADTDSDTNull", > + "FADT DSDT address is null."); > + } > + } else { > + if (fadt->x_dsdt == 0) { > + if (fadt->dsdt == 0) { > + *passed = false; > + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, > + "FADTXDSDTNull", > + "FADT X_DSDT and DSDT address are null."); > + } else { > + *passed = false; > + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, > + "FADTXDSDTNull", > + "FADT X_DSDT address is null."); > + fwts_advice(fw, > + "An ACPI 2.0 FADT is being used however " > + "the 64 bit X_DSDT is null." > + "The kernel will fall back to using " > + "the 32 bit DSDT pointer instead."); > + } > + } else if ((uint64_t)fadt->dsdt != fadt->x_dsdt && fadt->dsdt != 0) { > *passed = false; > fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, > "FADT32And64Mismatch", Acked-by: Ivan Hu<ivan.hu@canonical.com>
diff --git a/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c b/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c index baa1bf8..abacdb5 100644 --- a/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c +++ b/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c @@ -123,25 +123,33 @@ static void acpi_table_check_fadt_dsdt( const fwts_acpi_table_fadt *fadt, bool *passed) { - if (fadt->dsdt == 0) { - *passed = false; - fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, - "FADTDSTNull", - "FADT DSDT address is null."); - } - if (fadt->header.length >= 148) { - if (fadt->x_dsdt == 0) { + if (fadt->header.length < 148) { + if (fadt->dsdt == 0) { *passed = false; fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, - "FADTXDSTDNull", - "FADT X_DSDT address is null."); - fwts_advice(fw, - "An ACPI 2.0 FADT is being used however " - "the 64 bit X_DSDT is null." - "The kernel will fall back to using " - "the 32 bit DSDT pointer instead."); - } else if ((uint64_t)fadt->dsdt != fadt->x_dsdt) { + "FADTDSDTNull", + "FADT DSDT address is null."); + } + } else { + if (fadt->x_dsdt == 0) { + if (fadt->dsdt == 0) { + *passed = false; + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, + "FADTXDSDTNull", + "FADT X_DSDT and DSDT address are null."); + } else { + *passed = false; + fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, + "FADTXDSDTNull", + "FADT X_DSDT address is null."); + fwts_advice(fw, + "An ACPI 2.0 FADT is being used however " + "the 64 bit X_DSDT is null." + "The kernel will fall back to using " + "the 32 bit DSDT pointer instead."); + } + } else if ((uint64_t)fadt->dsdt != fadt->x_dsdt && fadt->dsdt != 0) { *passed = false; fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "FADT32And64Mismatch",
In coming ACPI spec, DSDT pointer should be zero if X_DSDT is non-zero. Current firmware implementation allows DSDT == X_DSDT. Therefore, both checks are both valid in FWTS. Signed-off-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung@canonical.com> --- src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)