Re: Bitfield usage in FADT table?

[Ducrot Bruno <ducrot-kk6yZipjEM5g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:15:28PM +0100, maxime bizon wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I'm using kernel 2.6.0-test9 on a i386 notebook.
> 
> I forced a new FADT table in the kernel and put the following bytes at
> offset 0x70:  0xf1 0xa2 0x35 0x78.
> 
> Then I made some printk at kernel init and here is the output:
> 
> begin dump of fadt:
> [...]
> 6e	0
> 6f	0
> 70	f1
> 71	a2
> 72	35
> 73	78
> 74	0
> 75	0
> [...]
> bit wb_invd is 1
> bit wb_invd_flush is 0
> bit proc_c1 is 0
> bit plvl2_up is 0
> bit pwr_button is 1
> bit sleep_button is 1
> bit fixed_rTC is 1
> bit rtcs4 is 1
> bit tmr_val_ext is 0
> bit dock_cap is 1
> bit reset_reg_sup is 0
> bit sealed_case is 0
> bit headless is 0
> bit cpu_sw_sleep is 1
> 
> gcc-2.95 and gcc-3.3 give the same thing.
> 
> 
> Is it really what it is supposed to be?

To be what?  What you want to do, exactly?

-- 
Ducrot Bruno

--  Which is worse:  ignorance or apathy?
--  Don't know.  Don't care.


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: ApacheCon 2003,
16-19 November in Las Vegas. Learn firsthand the latest
developments in Apache, PHP, Perl, XML, Java, MySQL,
WebDAV, and more! http://www.apachecon.com/