[Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v5 0/5] Provide better MADT subtable sanity checks
sudeep.holla at arm.com
Tue Oct 13 01:43:45 PDT 2015
On 12/10/15 20:25, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, October 12, 2015 10:44:52 AM Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> Instead of just removing the check completely on x86, IMO restrict
>> it to some newer/later version of ACPI so you can still force
>> vendors to fix their ACPI tables at-least in future.
> No, we can't force vendors to fix their ACPI tables. This is
> completely unrealistic.
No, I was referring to the future platforms *only*
> We simly need to deal with the bugs in the ACPI tables in the
Yes sadly true for existing systems, but if we now place a check for
ACPIv6.0 and above, we might avoid seeing such broken tables sometime in
future once the kernel with this check in place is used for validation.
>> It would be good to get such sanity check in the tools used to
>> build those tables, but yes since such static tables can be built
>> in many ways, its difficult to deal it in all those tools.
> As I said to Al, we need those checks in firmware test suites.
> Having them in the kernel is OK too, but they should cause warnings
> to be printed to the kernel log instead of causing the kernel to
More information about the linux-arm-kernel