From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05156C4332F for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 17:47:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F7787C3A; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 18:47:04 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="iM687ghe"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 8F44487C3B; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 18:47:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F78387C38 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 18:46:59 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1702662420; x=1734198420; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=R0S/JwWM0+x4ZRz+QfwEIZQdDngCSlJIyjA/EVi2R8M=; b=iM687ghePvhB8m7EbD7jQDjk/jtTCl1PZouRjxpXd8zlrVXdjLzHK//4 F3b+j7nojKTIfgQp6QxVt9iqeY2uP4P9X8QAVzIv2B/29O05wa4+ANHwL WCzqnutgyMABKJxEsFQ+4dWY2F0ztjdXMMD7FiERrxT/64br10Q68mPWj 9qaOS38uNtNLtLp2XRaSecNBuMfDUj7wJdk7VyYVfcaeVBxmLF4/puSUU K9tSPj4CkPVhaKWcAspi7pz6LykQ+X+hF+VdMwNzqXSXNW3sglWTsv6wI 4IxHo2IGCUKbPTJhgr89vmPtlgObu0byTqT4iXOQuvq4mca99bwmDEo7D g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10925"; a="13987338" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.04,279,1695711600"; d="scan'208";a="13987338" Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orvoesa101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Dec 2023 09:46:58 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10925"; a="809045575" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.04,279,1695711600"; d="scan'208";a="809045575" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Dec 2023 09:46:56 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rECH0-00000006BQT-0JKf; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 19:46:54 +0200 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 19:46:53 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Heinrich Schuchardt Cc: Simon Glass , Bin Meng , u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] cmd: acpi: check HW reduced flag in acpi list Message-ID: References: <20231215164016.137794-1-heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com> <20231215164016.137794-4-heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20231215164016.137794-4-heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.8 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 05:40:16PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > On non x86 platforms the hardware reduce flag must be set in the FADT > table. Write an error message if the flag is missing. ... > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86) && > + !(fadt->flags & ACPI_FADT_HW_REDUCED_ACPI)) > + log_err("FADT not ACPI hardware reduced compliant\n"); I guess it's half baked solution as this, HW reduced, flag adds more limitations even on x86. If you want a good validation it should be done in a separate function taking others aspects into account. But since it doesn't affect my area of interest in U-Boot, I won't prevent you from doing this way, it's up to the U-Boot maintainers how to proceed with it. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko