RE: [ACPI] [PATCH] ACPI: implement UUID-labelled vendor-defined resources

From: Moore, Robert <robert.moore_at_intel.com>
Date: 2005-09-21 09:16:37
I'll get to this a bit later.
Thx
Bob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjorn Helgaas [mailto:bjorn.helgaas@hp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 4:10 PM
> To: acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Cc: Moore, Robert; Brown, Len; Alex Williamson; Luck, Tony; linux-
> ia64@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [ACPI] [PATCH] ACPI: implement UUID-labelled
vendor-defined
> resources
> 
> On Monday 19 September 2005 9:31 am, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > BTW, Please explain in more detail what support is needed in
ACPICA
> for
> > > the ACPI 3.0 vendor-defined resource.  Also, any idea how we are
> > > supposed to determine if the UUID data exists within the
descriptor?
> > > (i.e., how do we differentiate an ACPI 2.0 vendor descriptor from
an
> > > ACPI 3.0 descriptor?)
> >
> > There's no mark that distinguishes 2.0 and 3.0 vendor descriptors.
> > As far as I can tell, a 3.0 descriptor (that contains a UUID and
> > sub-type) is also a perfectly valid 2.0 descriptor.
> >
> > ACPI 3.0 "strongs recommends," but apparently doesn't actually
> > require a UUID, so a 2.0 vendor descriptor should also be a valid
> > 3.0 descriptor.
> >
> > The idea is that we just look through all the vendor descriptors
> > for the supplied UUID.  If we find one, we return the information.
> > There's a small possibility that an ACPI 2.0, non-UUID-labelled
> > descriptor will contain data that happens to match the random
> > 16-byte UUID, and we'll return it by mistake.  But that possibility
> > is pretty remote, I think.
> 
> Ping...  Did this make any sense, or did I answer the wrong questions?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Wed Sep 21 09:17:22 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-09-21 09:17:29 EST