[PATCH 06/10] acpi: acpitables: add SBBR compliance tests

[Al Stone]

On 08/03/2017 06:17 PM, Alex Hung wrote:
> On 2017-07-24 11:10 PM, Sakar Arora wrote:
>> From: Rajat Goyal <Rajat.Goyal at arm.com>
>>
>> Server Base Boot Requirements (SBBR) specification is intended for SBSA-
>> compliant 64-bit ARMv8 servers.
>> It defines the base firmware requirements for out-of-box support of any
>> ARM SBSA-compatible Operating System or hypervisor.
>> The requirements in this specification are expected to be minimal yet
>> complete for booting a multi-core ARMv8 server platform, while leaving
>> plenty of room for OEM or ODM innovations and design details.
>> For more information, download the SBBR specification here:
>> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.den0044b/index.html
>>
>> This change introduces additional test cases as per sbbr.
>> Additional tests include
>> 1. Test that processors only exist in the _SB namespace.
>> 2. Test DSDT and SSDT tables are implemented.
>> 3. Check for recommended ACPI tables.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Supreeth Venkatesh <supreeth.venkatesh at arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajat Goyal <Rajat.Goyal at arm.com>
>> ---
>>   src/Makefile.am                  |   1 +
>>   src/acpi/acpitables/acpitables.c |   2 +-
>>   src/sbbr/acpitables/acpitables.c | 264 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   3 files changed, 266 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>   create mode 100644 src/sbbr/acpitables/acpitables.c
>>[snip....]
>> +    }
>> +    if (!checked)
>> +        fwts_aborted(fw, "Cannot find any ACPI tables.");
>> +    if (!dsdt_checked) {
>> +        fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_HIGH, "acpi_table_check_test4",
>> +                "Test DSDT table is NOT implemented.");
>> +    }
>> +    if (!ssdt_checked) {
>> +        fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_HIGH, "acpi_table_check_test4",
>> +                "Test SSDT table is NOT implemented.");
>> +    }
> 
> SSDT is usually optional. Is it mandatory in SBBR?

AFAIK, no.  If I misread the language somehow, then the SBBR needs to be fixed,
I believe.  The DSDT should be the only required AML table; SSDTs should be
entirely optional.

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