Question about rsdp test?

[Dong, Eric]

> On 07/18/2016 06:06 AM, Dong, Eric wrote:
> > When I do the Fwts test, I got below error for the rsdp test.
> >
> > rsdp           ;HED rsdp: RSDP Root System Description Pointer test.
> >
> > rsdp           ;SEP ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > rsdp           ;INF Test 1 of 1: RSDP Root System Description Pointer test.
> >
> > rsdp           ;PAS PASSED: Test 1, RSDP first checksum is correct
> >
> > rsdp           ;PAS PASSED: Test 1, RSDP: oem_id contains only printable
> >
> > rsdp           ;PAS characters.
> >
> > rsdp           ;PAS PASSED: Test 1, RSDP: revision is 2.
> >
> > rsdp           ;PAS PASSED: Test 1, RSDP: at least one of RsdtAddress or
> >
> > rsdp           ;PAS XsdtAddress is non-zero.
> >
> > rsdp           ;FAL FAILED [MEDIUM] RSDPBothAddressesFound: Test 1, RSDP: only
> >
> > rsdp           ;FAL one of RsdtAddress or XsdtAddress should be non-zero. Both
> >
> > rsdp           ;FAL fields are non-zero.
> >
> > rsdp           ;PAS PASSED: Test 1, RSDP: the correct RSDT/XSDT address is being
> >
> > rsdp           ;PAS used.
> >
> > rsdp           ;PAS PASSED: Test 1, RSDP: the table is the correct length.
> >
> > rsdp           ;PAS PASSED: Test 1, RSDP second checksum is correct
> >
> > rsdp           ;PAS PASSED: Test 1, RSDP: the reserved field is zero.
> >
> > rsdp           ;NLN
> >
> > rsdp           ;SEP ============================================================
> >
> > rsdp           ;SUM 8 passed, 1 failed, 0 warning, 0 aborted, 0 skipped, 0 info
> >
> > rsdp           ;SUM only.
> >
> > rsdp           ;SEP ============================================================
> >
> >
> >
> > I think it caused by both Rsdt and Xsdt address are not zero. But From ACPI 6.0
> > spec: (page 115)
> >
> > Notice that both the XSDT and the RSDT can be pointed to by the RSDP structure.
> > An ACPI-compatible OS must use the XSDT if present.
> >
> >
> >
> > From the above description, I think the spec allowed the case of both Xsdt and
> > Rsdt are not zero.  So I think Fwts tool should not report error for this case,
> > am I correct?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Eric
> 
> On what architecture?  If this is on ARMv8, we should not be using an RSDT,
> according to SBSA/SBBR specifications.  If this is on x86, or perhaps ia64,
> then the test probably needs to allow for that, if it doesn't already.
> 
> Personally, I'd really like to discourage new systems from using the 32-bit
> tables.
> 

Yes, I use the x86 system. I think it's an optional choice, Fwts should not report it as an error, maybe a warning is ok.

> --
> ciao,
> al
> -----------------------------------
> Al Stone
> Software Engineer
> Linaro Enterprise Group
> al.stone at linaro.org
> -----------------------------------