On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 3:19 PM Schmauss, Erik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:linux-acpi- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Rafael J. Wysocki > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 1:45 AM > > To: Busch, Keith <[email protected]> > > Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <[email protected]>; ACPI Devel > > Maling List <[email protected]>; Linux Memory Management List > > <[email protected]>; Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <[email protected]>; Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>; > > Hansen, Dave <[email protected]>; Williams, Dan J > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 01/12] acpi: Create subtable parsing infrastructure > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:05 AM Keith Busch <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Rafael and Bob, > > > > Parsing entries in an ACPI table had assumed a generic header > > > structure that is most common. There is no standard ACPI header, > > > though, so less common types would need custom parsers if they want go > > > through their sub-table entry list. > > > > It looks like the problem at hand is that acpi_hmat_structure is > > incompatible > > with acpi_subtable_header because of the different layout and field sizes. > > Just out of curiosity, why don't we use ACPICA code to parse static ACPI > tables > in Linux? > > We have a disassembler for static tables that parses all supported tables. > This > seems like a duplication of code/effort...
Oh, I thought acpi_table_parse_entries() was the common code. What's the ACPICA duplicate?
