Re: Endless ACPI errors on Linus tree (5b664cb235)

["Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>]

>>> "Andrew Paprocki" <andrew@ishiboo.com> 17.09.08 06:56 >>>
>On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@intel.com> 23.07.08 17:43 >>>
>>>Couple of thoughts.
>>>
>>>I think we must use the V2 field if it is present and the address value
>>>is > 32 bits.
>>>
>>>What if the V2 address is < 32 bits but does not match the V1 address?
>>
>> The v2 address was used already before this patch, the patch just
>> (initially) tried to make things consistent to use the v2 bit width along
>> with the v2 address. That didn't work out. I certainly think there's room
>> for improvement, but perhaps (at least at present) of more academical
>> nature: If the v2 widths indicate a value wider than the v1 ones, then
>> we could still try to use the v2 field. The breakages reported so far
>> were only in the v2 widths being smaller than the v1 ones...
>
>Jan,
>
>I finally was able to test this patch with the hardware which
>exhibited the original problem. The system works as expected and it
>prints out the kernel warning, which is also expected:
>
>FADT: X_PM1a_EVT_BLK.bit_width (8) does not match PM1_EVT_LEN (4)
>
>Let me know if you'd like me to try anything else on this hardware. I
>dumped the BIOS tables and verified that the bit width field is
>incorrect, so there doesn't seem to be much else to do.

Thanks, Andrew. No, there's nothing else to try.

Len/Robert/Andi - could we get that patch then into the queue again?
Do I need to re-submit?

Jan