Re: [PATCH 1/2] ibft: Update iBFT handling for v1.03 of the spec.

[Peter Jones]

On 05/12/2010 01:26 AM, 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?

Well, we haven't seen any ACPI-based hardware yet AFAIK - but I'm supposed to
have some soon.  So it's too early to tell which one is actually going to be
the more common case, or if this is really a non-issue.

> any reason to #define "iBFT" above and not use it below?

Nope, that's just an error.  I'll send a patch.

> 
>> +	if (!ibft_addr)
>> +		acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_IBFT, acpi_find_ibft);
>> +	if (!ibft_addr)
>> +		acpi_table_parse("iBFT", acpi_find_ibft);
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
> 
> Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center


-- 
        Peter

Obviously, a major malfunction has occurred.
		-- Steve Nesbitt, voice of Mission Control, January 28, 1986
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/