On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:56:30 +0200
Marian Posteuca <poste...@mutex.one> wrote:
> Thanks for the thorough review.
>
> Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> writes:
> > On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:33:53 +0200
> > Marian Posteuca <poste...@mutex.one> wrote:
> >
> > I see defaults are now initialized in pcmc->oem_[table_]id fields,
> > and sometimes used from there, so question is why
> > do we need use_sig_oem and keeping old code
> >
> > if (oem_id) {
> >
> > strncpy((char *)h->oem_id, oem_id, sizeof h->oem_id);
> >
> > } else {
> >
> > memcpy(h->oem_id, ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME6, 6);
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> > if ()) {
> > strncpy((char *)h->oem_table_id, oem_table_id,
> > sizeof(h->oem_table_id));
> > } else {
> >
> > memcpy(h->oem_table_id, ACPI_BUILD_APPNAME4, 4);
> >
> > memcpy(h->oem_table_id + 4, sig, 4);
> >
> > }
> > I'd rather drop 'else' branches altogether and simplify to something like
> > this
> >
> > g_assert(oem_id);
> > strncpy((char *)h->oem_id, oem_id, sizeof h->oem_id);
> > g_assert(oem_table_id)
> > strncpy((char *)h->oem_table_id, oem_table_id, sizeof(h->oem_table_id));
> > + padding
> >
> > and make sure ids are properly propagated everywhere.
> >
>
> I'm not sure if I understood this point correctly. You want to remove the
> appending
> of the sig part to the oem_table_id field, and just use whatever is
> passed by the caller for oem_table_id?
yes, according to spec unique oem_table_id helps only in distinguishing
different
pieces of DSDT/SSDT tables, for other tables it doesn't make any sense to make
it unique.
and this matches what real machines do.
