From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755924Ab0ELOJl (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2010 10:09:41 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60869 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755842Ab0ELOJj (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2010 10:09:39 -0400 Message-ID: <4BEAB683.8040600@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 10:09:07 -0400 From: Peter Jones User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100413 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc13 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Len Brown CC: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gpxe-devel@etherboot.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ibft: Update iBFT handling for v1.03 of the spec. References: <1270822888-13192-1-git-send-email-konrad@kernel.org> <1270822888-13192-2-git-send-email-konrad@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/12/2010 01:26 AM, Len Brown wrote: > >> #define IBFT_SIGN "iBFT" > ... >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI >> + /* >> + * One spec says "IBFT", the other says "iBFT". We have to check >> + * for both. >> + */ > > Really? > Which one do you see in the field? Well, we haven't seen any ACPI-based hardware yet AFAIK - but I'm supposed to have some soon. So it's too early to tell which one is actually going to be the more common case, or if this is really a non-issue. > any reason to #define "iBFT" above and not use it below? Nope, that's just an error. I'll send a patch. > >> + if (!ibft_addr) >> + acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_IBFT, acpi_find_ibft); >> + if (!ibft_addr) >> + acpi_table_parse("iBFT", acpi_find_ibft); >> +#endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */ > > Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- Peter Obviously, a major malfunction has occurred. -- Steve Nesbitt, voice of Mission Control, January 28, 1986