[PATCH 3/3] acpi: Fix-up patch to correct sandbox test errors

[Bin Meng]

Hi Simon,

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:29 AM Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Bin,
>
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 at 19:30, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 1:02 AM Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Move the alignment code into acpi_setup_base_tables() so that test and
> > > production code are in alignment.
> > >
> > > This brings x86/master into line with patch series v8.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > >
> > >  arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c | 5 -----
> > >  lib/acpi/acpi_table.c     | 7 ++++++-
> > >  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c b/arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c
> > > index 600bde2f5f..13f1409de8 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/lib/acpi_table.c
> > > @@ -375,11 +375,6 @@ ulong write_acpi_tables(ulong start_addr)
> > >         debug("ACPI: Writing ACPI tables at %lx\n", start_addr);
> > >
> > >         acpi_setup_base_tables(ctx, start);
> > > -       /*
> > > -        * Per ACPI spec, the FACS table address must be aligned to a 64 byte
> > > -        * boundary (Windows checks this, but Linux does not).
> > > -        */
> > > -       acpi_align64(ctx);
> > >
> > >         debug("ACPI:    * FACS\n");
> > >         facs = ctx->current;
> > > diff --git a/lib/acpi/acpi_table.c b/lib/acpi/acpi_table.c
> > > index 5abf1cad50..1c253af3bf 100644
> > > --- a/lib/acpi/acpi_table.c
> > > +++ b/lib/acpi/acpi_table.c
> > > @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ int acpi_add_table(struct acpi_ctx *ctx, void *table)
> > >         }
> > >
> > >         if (i >= entries_num) {
> > > -               debug("ACPI: Error: too many tables\n");
> > > +               log_err("ACPI: Error: too many tables\n");
> > >                 return -E2BIG;
> > >         }
> > >
> > > @@ -256,4 +256,9 @@ void acpi_setup_base_tables(struct acpi_ctx *ctx, void *start)
> > >         acpi_write_rsdp(ctx->rsdp, ctx->rsdt, ctx->xsdt);
> > >         acpi_write_rsdt(ctx->rsdt);
> > >         acpi_write_xsdt(ctx->xsdt);
> > > +       /*
> > > +        * Per ACPI spec, the FACS table address must be aligned to a 64 byte
> > > +        * boundary (Windows checks this, but Linux does not).
> > > +        */
> > > +       acpi_align64(ctx);
> > >  }
> > > --
> >
> > Could you please point out which commit in u-boot-x86/master should
> > squash in this patch to fix the build error on sandbox?
>
> It might be easier to pick up v8 in that case. I think there are three
> patches that need to change because of conflicts caused by the first
> one.
>
> So can you pick up the v8 patches? Also you do need to rebase on
> master because of the str_to_upper patches.

But v8 is a complete new series for part B? I think we'd better re-tag
v8 as v1. It's quite confusing.

Regards,
Bin