[ trimming ]
> >> Rafael, we may want to hold back on the module-level code changes
> >> (the patches below) for rc1. Between this and the strange _TSS issue,
> >> it seems like there are a few more things to resolve before this is
> >> ready for kernel upstream.
> >
Hi Rafael,

> > It looks like you are asking me to queue up reverts as per the Dan's
> > report, is that correct?

This is indeed what I meant last week. However, I've looked into the issue and 
Dan's qemu
instance had AML that we no longer support. This is because the ACPICA commit 
makes changes to the execution of AML
during table load to match windows AML interpreter behavior so this commit also 
got rid of support for executing code
containing forward references (except for package elements).

I've suggested a fix for the firmware in a separate email. So I would say that 
this issue is resolved after if Dan can run
his test successfully with the adjusted firmware.

If Dan's test is successful, we don’t need to revert these changes


> Note, that I'm willing to try any proposed fix patches on top. I just wanted 
> to
> clarify that we have a simple fallback position if the debug starts dragging 
> out.
Linux-nvdimm mailing list

Reply via email to