On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 at 00:03, Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote: > > ACPI tables may comprise either RSDT, XSDT, or both. The current code fails > to check the presence of the RSDT table before accessing it. This leads to > an exception if the RSDT table is not provided. > > The XSDT table takes precedence over the RSDT table. > > Addresses in the XSDT table are 64-bit. Adjust the output accordingly. > > As the RSDT table has to be ignored if the XSDT command is present there is > no need to compare the tables in a display command. Anyway the > specification does not require that the sequence of addresses in the RSDT > and XSDT table are the same. > > The FACS table header does not provide revision information. Correct the > description of dump_hdr(). > > Adjust the ACPI test to match the changed output format of the 'acpi list' > command. > > Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> > --- > v2: > add unit test for offset of field Entry in RSDT, XSDT > merge patch 2 and 3 > remove leading zeros from address output > --- > cmd/acpi.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > test/dm/acpi.c | 18 +++++++++--------- > 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
