WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]ACPI: workaround for S3 fail in two facs tables

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Gang Wei <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]ACPI: workaround for S3 fail in two facs tables case
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:24:58 +0000
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:25:59 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4B86866D020000780003147F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acq2HNt1OLTRAq40Q0+jKRqjkoVo3wAARGKW
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]ACPI: workaround for S3 fail in two facs tables case
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.23.0.091001
On 25/02/2010 13:17, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> /*
> * Check for FACS and DSDT address mismatches. An address mismatch between
> * the 32-bit and 64-bit address fields (FIRMWARE_CTRL/X_FIRMWARE_CTRL and
> * DSDT/X_DSDT) would indicate the presence of two FACS or two DSDT tables.
> */
> if (acpi_gbl_FADT.facs &&
>    (acpi_gbl_FADT.Xfacs != (u64) acpi_gbl_FADT.facs)) {
> ACPI_WARNING((AE_INFO,
>      "32/64X FACS address mismatch in FADT - "
>      "%8.8X/%8.8X%8.8X, using 32",
>      acpi_gbl_FADT.facs,
>      ACPI_FORMAT_UINT64(acpi_gbl_FADT.Xfacs)));
> 
> acpi_gbl_FADT.Xfacs = (u64) acpi_gbl_FADT.facs;
> }

Okay, well I guess that is basically what Gang Wei's patch implements,
although we don't print a warning and perhaps we should.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel