| Message ID | 20200126220508.34.Ib6a3a2f7b429bfd6a43f7bea0543862a1a2eced0@changeid |
|---|---|
| State | RFC |
| Delegated to: | Bin Meng |
| Headers | show |
| Series | RFC: dm: Add programatic generation of ACPI tables | expand |
On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 22:05:41 -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Put this table before MCFG so that it matches the order that coreboot uses > when passing tables to Linux. This is a cosmetic change since the order of > the tables does not otherwise matter. The patch looks like it's doing the opposite of what the commit message says. Rebasing issue, or am I being daft? (If this is a stack operation, use of stack terminology in the commit message would be more daft-friendly.) / Leif > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> > --- > > arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c | 12 ++++++------ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c b/arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c > index 83b92e2a4c..694e92c158 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c > +++ b/arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c > @@ -408,18 +408,18 @@ ulong write_acpi_tables(ulong start_addr) > acpi_create_fadt(fadt, facs, dsdt); > acpi_add_table(ctx, fadt); > > - debug("ACPI: * MADT\n"); > - madt = ctx->current; > - acpi_create_madt(madt); > - acpi_inc_align(ctx, madt->header.length); > - acpi_add_table(ctx, madt); > - > debug("ACPI: * MCFG\n"); > mcfg = ctx->current; > acpi_create_mcfg(mcfg); > acpi_inc_align(ctx, mcfg->header.length); > acpi_add_table(ctx, mcfg); > > + debug("ACPI: * MADT\n"); > + madt = ctx->current; > + acpi_create_madt(madt); > + acpi_inc_align(ctx, madt->header.length); > + acpi_add_table(ctx, madt); > + > debug("ACPI: * CSRT\n"); > csrt = ctx->current; > acpi_create_csrt(csrt); > -- > 2.25.0.341.g760bfbb309-goog >
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 04:02, Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 22:05:41 -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Put this table before MCFG so that it matches the order that coreboot uses > > when passing tables to Linux. This is a cosmetic change since the order of > > the tables does not otherwise matter. > > The patch looks like it's doing the opposite of what the commit > message says. Rebasing issue, or am I being daft? (If this is a stack > operation, use of stack terminology in the commit message would be > more daft-friendly.) Ooops, thanks, fixed! - Simon
diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c b/arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c index 83b92e2a4c..694e92c158 100644 --- a/arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c +++ b/arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c @@ -408,18 +408,18 @@ ulong write_acpi_tables(ulong start_addr) acpi_create_fadt(fadt, facs, dsdt); acpi_add_table(ctx, fadt); - debug("ACPI: * MADT\n"); - madt = ctx->current; - acpi_create_madt(madt); - acpi_inc_align(ctx, madt->header.length); - acpi_add_table(ctx, madt); - debug("ACPI: * MCFG\n"); mcfg = ctx->current; acpi_create_mcfg(mcfg); acpi_inc_align(ctx, mcfg->header.length); acpi_add_table(ctx, mcfg); + debug("ACPI: * MADT\n"); + madt = ctx->current; + acpi_create_madt(madt); + acpi_inc_align(ctx, madt->header.length); + acpi_add_table(ctx, madt); + debug("ACPI: * CSRT\n"); csrt = ctx->current; acpi_create_csrt(csrt);
Put this table before MCFG so that it matches the order that coreboot uses when passing tables to Linux. This is a cosmetic change since the order of the tables does not otherwise matter. Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> --- arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)