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
_______________________________________________
gPXE-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://etherboot.org/mailman/listinfo/gpxe-devel
