From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ACPI: Make sure the FADT is at least rev 2 before using the reset register Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:59:06 +0000 Message-ID: <20110323105906.GA29657@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1299877940-6870-1-git-send-email-mjg@redhat.com> <1299877940-6870-4-git-send-email-mjg@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:47866 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751109Ab1CWK7O (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:59:14 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:01:50AM -0400, Len Brown wrote: > if (!(acpi_gbl_FADT.flags & ACPI_FADT_RESET_REGISTER)) > return; > > For it not to be redundant, there would have to be FADTs out there > of revision 1 that set what was then a reserved bit in the flags. Yes. You trust them not to have set reserved flags to random garbage? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org