Re: [PATCH]ACPI: workaround for S3 fail in two facs tables case

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>]

>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> 25.02.10 12:58 >>>
>What do you think? And I was looking at Linux 2.6.27 -- has behaviour there
>chanegd since then?

Not much, but it got improved - 2.6.33 has

	/*
	 * Expand the 32-bit FACS and DSDT addresses to 64-bit as necessary.
	 * Later code will always use the X 64-bit field. Also, check for an
	 * address mismatch between the 32-bit and 64-bit address fields
	 * (FIRMWARE_CTRL/X_FIRMWARE_CTRL, DSDT/X_DSDT) which would indicate
	 * the presence of two FACS or two DSDT tables.
	 */
	if (!acpi_gbl_FADT.Xfacs) {
		acpi_gbl_FADT.Xfacs = (u64) acpi_gbl_FADT.facs;
	} else if (acpi_gbl_FADT.facs &&
		   (acpi_gbl_FADT.Xfacs != (u64) acpi_gbl_FADT.facs)) {
		ACPI_WARNING((AE_INFO,
		    "32/64 FACS address mismatch in FADT - two FACS tables!"));
	}

and

	/*
	 * Check for FACS and DSDT address mismatches. An address mismatch between
	 * the 32-bit and 64-bit address fields (FIRMWARE_CTRL/X_FIRMWARE_CTRL and
	 * DSDT/X_DSDT) would indicate the presence of two FACS or two DSDT tables.
	 */
	if (acpi_gbl_FADT.facs &&
	    (acpi_gbl_FADT.Xfacs != (u64) acpi_gbl_FADT.facs)) {
		ACPI_WARNING((AE_INFO,
			      "32/64X FACS address mismatch in FADT - "
			      "%8.8X/%8.8X%8.8X, using 32",
			      acpi_gbl_FADT.facs,
			      ACPI_FORMAT_UINT64(acpi_gbl_FADT.Xfacs)));

		acpi_gbl_FADT.Xfacs = (u64) acpi_gbl_FADT.facs;
	}

(and as the comments say, each repeated for the DSDT).

Jan