On 11/12/23 21:01, Simon Glass wrote:
On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 00:03, Heinrich Schuchardt heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com wrote:
ACPI tables may comprise either RSDT, XSDT, or both. The current code fails to check the presence of the RSDT table before accessing it. This leads to an exception if the RSDT table is not provided.
The XSDT table takes precedence over the RSDT table.
Addresses in the XSDT table are 64-bit. Adjust the output accordingly.
As the RSDT table has to be ignored if the XSDT command is present there is no need to compare the tables in a display command. Anyway the specification does not require that the sequence of addresses in the RSDT and XSDT table are the same.
The FACS table header does not provide revision information. Correct the description of dump_hdr().
Adjust the ACPI test to match the changed output format of the 'acpi list' command.
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com
v2: add unit test for offset of field Entry in RSDT, XSDT merge patch 2 and 3 remove leading zeros from address output
cmd/acpi.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- test/dm/acpi.c | 18 +++++++++--------- 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
The patch does not consider that
map_sysmem(0, 0) != NULL
on the sandbox.
list_rsdp() needs to be changed to pass rsdt or xsdt as NULL if rsdt_address or xsdt_address is zero when invoking list_rsdt().
So this needs a respin.
Best regards
Heinrich