Serious bug in ACPI enumeration

Serious bug in ACPI enumeration

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

My "toshiba workaround" was not toshiba specific: you stopped scanning
at first device that was not present. That's bad, you have to continue
scanning. Here's fix.

								Pavel

--- clean/drivers/acpi/namespace/nsxfobj.c	Sun Apr  1 00:23:00 2001
+++ linux/drivers/acpi/namespace/nsxfobj.c	Thu Apr  5 22:49:18 2001
@@ -592,7 +595,7 @@
 
 	status = acpi_cm_execute_STA (node, &flags);
 	if (ACPI_FAILURE (status)) {
-		return (status);
+		return AE_OK;
 	}
 
 	if (!(flags & 0x01)) {


-- 
I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org

RE: Serious bug in ACPI enumeration

[Grover, Andrew]

This is because at this stage of ACPI development, we want to be as strict
as possible w.r.t. AML, to expose bugs in the software.

That said, maybe it's better to just emit a warning here, instead of
failing. I'll bring it up with the team.

Regards -- Andy

> From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pavel@suse.cz]
> 
> Hi!
> 
> My "toshiba workaround" was not toshiba specific: you stopped scanning
> at first device that was not present. That's bad, you have to continue
> scanning. Here's fix.
> 
> 								Pavel
> 
> --- clean/drivers/acpi/namespace/nsxfobj.c	Sun Apr  1 00:23:00 2001
> +++ linux/drivers/acpi/namespace/nsxfobj.c	Thu Apr  5 22:49:18 2001
> @@ -592,7 +595,7 @@
>  
>  	status = acpi_cm_execute_STA (node, &flags);
>  	if (ACPI_FAILURE (status)) {
> -		return (status);
> +		return AE_OK;
>  	}
>  
>  	if (!(flags & 0x01)) {
> 
> 
> -- 
> I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I 
> don't care."
> Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at 
> discuss@linmodems.org
>