Hi Bin,
On Tue, 19 Sept 2023 at 01:56, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:28 PM Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Andy,
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 9:52 PM Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com wrote:
The Simon's patch missed the FADT to be added to the chain, hence all the issues on Intel Tangier.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com
arch/x86/cpu/tangier/acpi.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/x86/cpu/tangier/acpi.c b/arch/x86/cpu/tangier/acpi.c index 01b30553818c..ffaa56ab6f87 100644 --- a/arch/x86/cpu/tangier/acpi.c +++ b/arch/x86/cpu/tangier/acpi.c @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ static int tangier_write_fadt(struct acpi_ctx *ctx,
header->checksum = table_compute_checksum(fadt, header->length);
acpi_add_table(ctx, fadt);acpi_inc(ctx, sizeof(struct acpi_fadt)); return 0;--
Which commit should we squash this patch in?
Ah, I see this patch is already included in Simon's patch: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20230901112707.v3.1.I61008e...
I am going to apply Simon's patch unless you guys say I am looking at the wrong patch :)
Yes, that's it.
Regards, Simon