From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Ignore the upper bits of SystemIO addresses Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 17:27:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20100519162702.GB25719@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1274283791-3380-1-git-send-email-mjg@redhat.com> <201005191018.46799.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:52572 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752241Ab0ESQ1N (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2010 12:27:13 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201005191018.46799.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, robert.moore@intel.com, lenb@kernel.org On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:18:46AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > I think this is a good idea. But it makes me a little bit nervous > to change addresses supplied by the firmware without any user-visible > indication at all. Is it worth doing a WARN_ONCE() sort of thing > when we truncate? That doesn't seem unreasonable, but do we have anything equivalent to that in the acpica code right now? > I know you experimented quite a bit to confirm that Windows does this > sort of masking. Do you have any notes about that experimentation > that would be useful to add to the bugzilla? Sure. I'll do that. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org