From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ducrot Bruno Subject: Re: Bitfield usage in FADT table? Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:02:45 +0100 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <20031111170245.GE29175@poupinou.org> References: <20031111161527.GC23128@sh.epita.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031111161527.GC23128-AroONJ29hSVWj0EZb7rXcA@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: maxime bizon Cc: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.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/