From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat May  8 11:37:27 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183EA16A4CE
	for <acpi@freebsd.org>; Sat,  8 May 2004 11:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from root.org (root.org [67.118.192.226])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C4F043D49
	for <acpi@freebsd.org>; Sat,  8 May 2004 11:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nate@root.org)
Received: (qmail 58715 invoked by uid 1000); 8 May 2004 18:37:26 -0000
Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 11:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040508.054429.99235478.imp@bsdimp.com>
Message-ID: <20040508113421.R58706@root.org>
References: <20040507231846.F52653@root.org>
	<20040508.054429.99235478.imp@bsdimp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: acpi@freebsd.org
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: New ACPI blacklist format
X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: ACPI and power management development <freebsd-acpi.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-acpi>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 18:37:27 -0000

On Sat, 8 May 2004, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <20040507231846.F52653@root.org>
>             Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> writes:
> : 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:
>
> It does.
>
> : 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", "", "", "" },
> : };
>
> { .signature = "FACP", .oem_id="AWARD", .oem_table_id="AWARDACPI",
>   .oem_rev_op = "<=", }
>
> :The op values will be "<=", "=", and ">=".
>
> These are likely better as a enum.
>
> : Is there any better way to compact this?
>
> Using shorter structure names would get it all onthe same line.

Sure, good comments.  What I meant by compacting was to get a variable
number of acpi_table_desc elements in a single blacklist entry without
defining a separate static.  Something like this:

static struct acpi_blacklist blacklist[] = {
    {
        .quirk = ACPI_BROKEN,
        {
            { "FACP", ... },
            { "DSDT", ... }
        }
    },
    {
        .quirk = ...
    }
};

The compiler didn't allow this.

-Nate