On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 06:11:17PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2023 18:47:10 +0300 > > From: Mikhail <mp39...@gmail.com> > > The problem here is that if the firmware provided an ECDT table, its > AML may use the EC right from the start. But that won't be possible > if you bail out early just because the EC_ID doesn't match. So hence > the following question: > > Do the addresses described by EC_CONTROL and EC_DATA match the ones > described by the _CRS() method for EC in the AML namespace on the > problematic machine?
Yeah, they're the same. I understand the risks of the patch now, thank you for clarification, lets leave this for the mail archives, I drop the diff.
