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

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 01:26:59AM -0400, 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?

The one machine I do remember seeing this in the ACPI tables was the IBM
HS20, but I can't remember which one it was. Mike, Peter - any
recollection? Don't know about about Intel ones.

For cases where there was no ACPI, the 'iBFT' was definitly the string I saw.

> any reason to #define "iBFT" above and not use it below?
> 
> > +	if (!ibft_addr)
> > +		acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_IBFT, acpi_find_ibft);
> > +	if (!ibft_addr)
> > +		acpi_table_parse("iBFT", acpi_find_ibft);

Could definitly use the IBFT_SIGN here.

Thanks for taking a look!
--
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/