<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"> <div class="WordSection1"> Hi Alex & Jeffrey, <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thanks for your comments, I don’t aware my mark solution not work in this mail list. Attach my change code for you to reference. I think the old code logic not consistent. PS: 12345678<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I missed the latest 6.1 spec, I just check the 6.0 spec and not found this sentence. "If the X_PM1b_CNT_BLK field contains a non-zero value then this field must be zero." This is new added for 6.1 spec.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thanks,<o:p></o:p> Eric<o:p></o:p> <div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"> <div> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> From: Alex Hung [mailto:alex.hung@canonical.com] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 1:38 AM To: Jeffrey Hugo Cc: Dong, Eric; fwts-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: Issues in fadt check item?<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div> I agree with Jeffrey that's actually not a fix: ACPI 6.1 explicitly states PM1b_CNT_BLK to meet "If the X_PM1b_CNT_BLK field contains a non-zero value then this field must be zero." The same also applies to PM2_CNT_BLK.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Many systems are shipped before ACPI 6.1's release, and this failure is odd for them. I think it is a case this error can be ignored. However, you should try to meet ACPI 6.1 spec if a target system is being developed.<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 7:36 AM, Jeffrey Hugo <<a href="mailto:jhugo@codeaurora.org" target="_blank">jhugo@codeaurora.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p> Hi Eric<o:p></o:p> <div> <div> On 12/7/2016 5:51 AM, Dong, Eric wrote:<o:p></o:p> Hi, When I use fwts to check uefi bios code, it reports some issues related to fadt check item. After check the uefi code and acpi spec, I didn’t find error for uefi code. So I download fwts code (fwts_16.11.00) and i think some bugs in the fadt check item. One issue like below: static void acpi_table_check_fadt_pm2_cnt_blk(fwts_framework *fw) { if (fadt->pm2_cnt_blk == 0 && fadt->header.length < 208) { fwts_skipped(fw, "FADT PM2_CNT_BLK not being used."); return; } if (fadt->pm2_cnt_blk == 0 && fadt->x_pm2_cnt_blk.address == 0) { fwts_skipped(fw, "FADT PM2_CNT_BLK not being used."); return; } if ((fadt->pm2_cnt_blk != 0 && fadt->x_pm2_cnt_blk.address == 0) || (fadt->pm2_cnt_blk == 0 && fadt->x_pm2_cnt_blk.address != 0)) fwts_passed(fw, "FADT only one of the 32-bit or 64-bit " "PM2_CNT_BLK fields is being used."); else fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "FADTPm2CntBlkOnlyOneField", "FADT PM2_CNT_BLK field has both the 32-bit " "and the 64-bit field set."); { if ((uint64_t)fadt->pm2_cnt_blk == fadt->x_pm2_cnt_blk.address) { fwts_passed(fw, "FADT 32- and 64-bit PM2_CNT_BLK fields are " "at least equal."); fwts_advice(fw, "Both FADT 32- and 64-bit PM2_CNT_BLK " "fields are being used, but only one should be " "non-zero. However, they are at least equal so " "the kernel will at least have a usable value."); } else { fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "FADTPm2CntBlkNotSet", "FADT PM2_CNT_BLK is a required field and must " "have either a 32-bit or 64-bit address set."); fwts_advice(fw, "Both FADT 32- and 64-bit PM2_CNT_BLK " "fields are being used, but only one should be " "non-zero. Since the fields value are not equal " "the kernel cannot unambiguously determine which " "value is the correct one."); } } } I think the fix is: remove the red mark code and add green mark code. what do you think?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </div> I'm curious, can you describe the scenario or scenarios in which you feel the current code fails? Having looked at the ACPI spec and the code you've identified in your mail, I don't yet see an issue with the current code that you've identified, and I actually think your "fix" is incorrect at this time.<o:p></o:p> Thanks, Eric <o:p></o:p> -- Jeffrey Hugo Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. -- fwts-devel mailing list <a href="mailto:fwts-devel@lists.ubuntu.com" target="_blank">fwts-devel@lists.ubuntu.com</a> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/fwts-devel" target="_blank"> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/fwts-devel</a><o:p></o:p> </div> -- <o:p></o:p> <div> <div> Cheers, Alex Hung<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>