On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 6:33 PM Ard Biesheuvel
wrote:
>
> On 30 August 2018 at 13:23, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 04:14:16PM +0530, Chandni Cherukuri wrote:
> >> Switched from using ACPI 6.1 to 6.2 specification for
> >> SGI575 since SBBR 1.1 requires ACPI 6.2 tables or
On 30 August 2018 at 13:23, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 04:14:16PM +0530, Chandni Cherukuri wrote:
>> Switched from using ACPI 6.1 to 6.2 specification for
>> SGI575 since SBBR 1.1 requires ACPI 6.2 tables or later.
>
> Just to clarify - this has no impact at all on the actual
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 04:14:16PM +0530, Chandni Cherukuri wrote:
> Switched from using ACPI 6.1 to 6.2 specification for
> SGI575 since SBBR 1.1 requires ACPI 6.2 tables or later.
Just to clarify - this has no impact at all on the actual generated
tables, right?
We really should have a better
Switched from using ACPI 6.1 to 6.2 specification for
SGI575 since SBBR 1.1 requires ACPI 6.2 tables or later.
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: Leif Lindholm
Signed-off-by: Chandni Cherukuri
---
Platform/ARM/SgiPkg/AcpiTables/Sgi575/Dbg2.aslc | 8
4 matches
Mail list logo