Hi Andy, -----"Andy Shevchenko" <[email protected]> schrieb: ----- > Betreff: Re: [PATCH v1] cmd: acpi: Print revisions in hex format > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 05:32:08PM +0200, Wolfgang Wallner wrote: > > -----"Andy Shevchenko" <[email protected]> schrieb: ----- > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 5:58 PM Wolfgang Wallner > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > -----"Andy Shevchenko" <[email protected]> schrieb: > > > > ----- > > ... > > > > > Related to "acpi list": > > > > During my recent ACPI debugging I found it very useful to have the > > > > checksum > > > > printed for each table with "acpi list". Would there be interest to > > > > have that > > > > upstream? If so I would send a patch. > > > > > > Can you elaborate what was the problem that checksum helped? > > > > Sure. I saw two strange things with the ACPI checksums: > > > > 1) The DSDT length included uninitialized bytes from alignment. This is > > described in the following link: > > > > https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2020-September/425378.html > > > > This was the actual bug I was looking for. > > > > 2) acpi_create_spcr() is missing a memset(). The other acpi_create_xxxx() > > functions perform a memset on their structure, acpi_create_spcr() does not > > and as a result the contents of this table are party uninitialized. > > > > I plan to send a patch for both of them. > > I'm not sure I understood how checksum pointed to uninitialized data?
After adding the checksums to "acpi list" I realized that the checksums for DSDT and SPCR where different after every reset. Looking at the code each turned out to be somehow related to uninitialized memory. regards, Wolfgang PS: My mail client has somehow corrupted your last mail, and I can't open it. A colleague has forwarded it to me so I could reply. This is why I reply to my own mail.
