Questions about ACPI compliance test RSDPBadOEMId

[Colin Ian King]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi Patrick,

I believe the test is being overly strict.  We can easily relax this for
the next release of fwts.

Colin

On 08/08/15 22:16, Patrick Georgi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the tools! I just tried the ACPI tests on a coreboot system
 and they reported a number of issues that I'm now working on.
> 
> RSDPBadOEMId is one of them and it claims that we're not in compliance
 with the spec because we use "CORE  " for the oemid field, and the spac
es aren't covered by isalnum(), which is used for this test.
> I couldn't find this requirement in the ACPI specification, but I know
 there are many reasons for implementations to be stricter than required
 by the spec (eg. because of unusual operating system implementations).
> 
> Now I wonder if I should adapt coreboot to avoid spaces in this field,
 or if the test is overly strict (and may be better served with isprint(
), for example).
> 
> (side-note: the advice to that test states "make the firmware ACPI com
pl_ai_nt.")
> 
> Thanks,
> Patrick
> 
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=5urw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----