From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Renninger Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Implement overriding of arbitrary ACPI tables via initrd Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 02:26:34 +0100 Message-ID: <201203240226.35314.trenn@suse.de> References: <1332512984-79664-1-git-send-email-trenn@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60306 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751203Ab2CXB0h (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:26:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Yinghai Lu Cc: eric.piel@tremplin-utc.net, vojcek@tlen.pl, dsdt@gaugusch.at, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Lin Ming , lenb@kernel.org, robert.moore@intel.com, hpa@zytor.com On Friday 23 March 2012 21:54:12 Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Thomas Renninger wrote: ... > great. that is very good feature for development and debug. Thanks. ... > > + int table_nr = 0; > > + *table_length = 0; > > + *address = 0; > > + for (; table_nr < ACPI_OVERRIDE_TABLES && > > + acpi_table_override_offset[table_nr]; table_nr++) { > > + int table_offset; > > + int table_len; > > + struct acpi_table_header *table; > > + > > + if (table_nr == 0) > > + table_offset = 0; > > + else > > + table_offset = acpi_table_override_offset[table_nr - 1]; > > > > + table_len = acpi_table_override_offset[table_nr] - table_offset; > > + > > + table = acpi_os_map_memory(acpi_tables_inram + table_offset, > > + table_len); > > + > > maybe could have dmi checking for more strict checking. I do not understand what should get checked? Hm, I guess you mean if a general table is always added that is distributed on different platforms and you want to white/blacklist machines to explicitly load/not load the table? This must not happen. The tables are always platform specific and you provide tables for a specific machine only for debugging purposes. > also would help if have one boot command that could skip overriding. Same. Both should not be needed. Or you have a use-case in mind I cannot not think of... Thomas