ACK: [PATCH 2/2] Add ACPI 1.0 RSDP test to make sure RSDT field isn't null

[ivanhu]

On 11/14/2017 12:47 PM, Alex Hung wrote:
> From: Chris Goldsworthy <goldswo at amazon.com>
> 
> Given that a RSDP follows ACPI 1.0, perform a test to ensure that
> the RSDT address field is not null.  The addition of this test
> ensures that there are tests for each RSDP field for any ACPI
> specification.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christopher Goldsworthy <goldswo at amazon.de>
> ---
>   src/acpi/rsdp/rsdp.c |  21 +++++--
>   test.patch           | 170 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/acpi/rsdp/rsdp.c b/src/acpi/rsdp/rsdp.c
> index 2f537be..0fcb430 100644
> --- a/src/acpi/rsdp/rsdp.c
> +++ b/src/acpi/rsdp/rsdp.c
> @@ -115,11 +115,24 @@ static int rsdp_test1(fwts_framework *fw)
>   			"RSDP: revision is %" PRIu8 ", expected "
>   			"value to be 0 or 2.", rsdp->revision);
>   
> -	/* all proceeding tests involve fields which are only
> -	 * defined in ACPI specifications 2.0 and greater, skip
> -	 * if ACPI version is 1.0 */
> -	if (rsdp->revision == 0)
> +	/* check if RSDP follows ACPI 1.0 - if so, make sure rsdt_address
> +	 * is not null. */
> +	if (rsdp->revision == 0) {
> +		if (rsdp->rsdt_address != 0)
> +			fwts_passed(fw,
> +					"RSDP: RSDP follows ACPI 1.0 "
> +					"and RsdtAddress is set.");
> +		else
> +			fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM,
> +					"RSDPNullRSDTPointer",
> +					"RSDP: RSDP follows ACPI 1.0, but "
> +					"RsdtAddress isn't set.");
> +
> +		/* all proceeding tests involve fields which are only
> +		 * defined in ACPI specifications 2.0 and greater, skip
> +		 * if ACPI version is 1.0 */
>   		return FWTS_OK;
> +	}
>   
>   	/* whether RSDT or XSDT depends arch */
>   	if (rsdp->rsdt_address == 0 && rsdp->xsdt_address == 0)
> 

Acked-by: Ivan Hu <ivan.hu at canonical.com>