>If FADT is absolutely required for every ACPI tree, I see why >there is no check in the kernel code. However, it still seems >like a bug to me as everything else works if the FADT pointer >is zero (with the above one line patch).
ACPI has to jump through a lot of hoops due to broken systems. I don't want to add, test, and support an "FADT optional" hoop unless absolutely necessary. >Thanks for the pointer... I will go find it and see if I can >leverage the code. please do -- that is why we write it:-) -Len - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
