RE: ACPI WARNING: atdrivers/acpi/tables/tbfadt.c:348acpi_tb_create_local_fadt+0x147/0x2f4()

From: Jan Beulich
Date: Fri Jul 18 2008 - 04:42:52 EST

>>> "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx> 17.07.08 19:20 >>>
>So far, in the number of the cases like this that I've seen, it's the v2
>fields that have problems. Perhaps the heuristic should be something
>like "if there is an inconsistency between the v1 and v2 fields, fall
>back to v1".

While extending the patch to do so, I realize that other v2 fields are
used as-is, no matter whether their bit_width (or other fields) are
wrong. Is that perhaps why hardware/hwregs.c uses hard-coded
constants rather than the specified widths? If so (and if the v1 fields
are considered reliable), shouldn't the v2 ones be sanity-checked
against the v1 ones and then the specified widths be used as intended
by the spec?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at