From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NK7ZW-0001Ks-Oo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:50:30 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NK7ZS-0001IV-1m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:50:30 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42414 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NK7ZR-0001IP-OT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:50:25 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36600) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NK7ZR-0000wJ-C3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:50:25 -0500 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:50:21 +0200 From: Gleb Natapov Message-ID: <20091214095021.GG1821@redhat.com> References: <20091213151408.GB22854@morn.localdomain> <4B26047A.60409@virtutech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B26047A.60409@virtutech.com> Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Seabios: Fix PkgLength calculation for the SSDT. List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Magnus Christensson Cc: Kevin O'Connor , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:25:14AM +0100, Magnus Christensson wrote: > >>> From d9dc0f50b2ce756e8a3b4ede0a8ecbe76f2afcb8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >>From: Magnus Christensson > >>Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:26:58 +0100 > >>Subject: [PATCH 13/13] Fix PkgLength calculation for the SSDT. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Magnus Christensson > >>--- > >> src/acpi.c | 6 ++++-- > >> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >>diff --git a/src/acpi.c b/src/acpi.c > >>index 843af69..88007ae 100644 > >>--- a/src/acpi.c > >>+++ b/src/acpi.c > >>@@ -464,10 +464,12 @@ build_ssdt(void) > >> // build processor scope header > >> *(ssdt_ptr++) = 0x10; // ScopeOp > >> if (cpu_length<= 0x3e) { > >>+ /* Handle 1-4 CPUs with one byte encoding */ > >> *(ssdt_ptr++) = cpu_length + 1; > >> } else { > >>- *(ssdt_ptr++) = 0x7F; > >>- *(ssdt_ptr++) = (cpu_length + 2)>> 6; > >>+ /* Handle 5-314 CPUs with two byte encoding */ > >>+ *(ssdt_ptr++) = 0x40 | ((cpu_length + 1)& 0xf); > >>+ *(ssdt_ptr++) = (cpu_length + 1)>> 4; > >Should be cpu_length + 2 as far as I can tell. The current code is > >definitely broken. > Right. That should be cpu_length +2 in the else-part. > BTW, how did you notice it? What OS fails? -- Gleb.