Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 11:21:57 +0200 From: christian uhrhan <christian.uhrhan@gmx.de> To: acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New ACPI blacklist format Message-ID: <20040508092157.GA2218@secretcore.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20040507231846.F52653@root.org> References: <20040507231846.F52653@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 11:28:15PM -0700, Nate Lawson wrote:
> I have extracted a set of known-broken tables/versions from various
> sources. Since. as far as I know, C does not allow variable length
> initializers, I've settled on the following format:
>
> struct acpi_table_desc {
> char *signature;
> char *oem_id;
> char *oem_table_id;
> char *oem_rev_op;
> char *oem_revision;
> char *creator_id;
> char *creator_rev_op;
> char *creator_revision;
> };
>
> struct acpi_blacklist {
> int quirk;
> struct acpi_table_desc *match;
> };
>
> #define ACPI_BROKEN 0x1
>
> static struct acpi_table_desc Abit_BP6[] = {
> { "FACP", "AWARD", "AWRDACPI", "<=", "30302e31", "", "", "" },
> };
> static struct acpi_table_desc AMI_INT[] = { /* 01/18/00 */
> { "FACP", "AWARD", "", "<=", "10", "", "", "" },
> { "DSDT", "", "", "<=", "5", "", "", "" },
> };
> static struct acpi_table_desc Compaq_ViperII[] = {
> { "FACP", "COMPAQ", "VIPER II", "<=", "06040000", "PTL", "<=", "000F4240" },
> };
>
> static struct acpi_blacklist acpi_blacklist_table[] = {
> { ACPI_BROKEN, Abit_BP6 },
> { ACPI_BROKEN, AMI_INT },
> { ACPI_BROKEN, Compaq_ViperII },
> };
>
> Each entry in acpi_table_desc lists a table ID and then a set of strings
> to match against the table. Multiple tables may be matched for a given
> system (i.e. AMI_INT above). The op values will be "<=", "=", and ">=".
> The quirk associated with each system will be a bitmask returned from the
> quirk matching function.
>
> In English, the last entry means, "Check the table named 'FACP' for an OEM
> ID of 'COMPAQ' and table ID of 'VIPER II' and OEM revision <= '06040000'
> ..." Substring matches will work too (e.g., "COMPA").
>
> Is there any better way to compact this?
>
I would say it's a good way to handle it.
btw: you should mark the end of the list
static struct acpi_blacklist acpi_blacklist_table[] = {
{ ACPI_BROKEN, Abit_BP6 },
{ ACPI_BROKEN, AMI_INT },
{ ACPI_BROKEN, Compaq_ViperII },
{ 0, NULL },
};
It's easy to go through each element by a simple for so i would say
it's a good way to it. Maybe it would also a good idea to define a
constant for each acpi_table_desc-entry:
enum atdindex {
atdsignature,
atdoem_id,
atdoem_table_id,
atdrev_op,
atdrevision,
atdcreator_id,
atdcreator_rev_op,
atdcreator_revision
};
so by reading the code you could read which element you selected
acpi_blacklist_table[0].match[atdsignature]
only a suggestion :)
-cu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040508092157.GA2218>