Comment 25 for bug 1529381

I got it! If I didn't mess it up but I don't think so.

Side question: do you have to do "fakeroot debian/rules clean" for every step when bisecting? The guide was a bit unclear on that. I was just thinking the compile process might be quicker if I didn't do clean in between..

19114b5458510b757cd2801e64094e4062e4067f is the first bad commit
commit 19114b5458510b757cd2801e64094e4062e4067f
Author: Lv Zheng <email address hidden>
Date: Wed Jul 1 14:43:34 2015 +0800

    ACPICA: Tables: Enable default 64-bit FADT addresses favor

    BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1479048

    commit 0ea61381788a37d864f9841b0fe97d40f7058f3b upstream.

    ACPICA commit 4da56eeae0749dfe8491285c1e1fad48f6efafd8

    The following commit temporarily disables correct 64-bit FADT addresses
    favor during the period the root cause of the bug is not fixed:
     Commit: 85dbd5801f62b66e2aa7826aaefcaebead44c8a6
     ACPICA: Tables: Restore old behavor to favor 32-bit FADT addresses.

    With enough protections, this patch re-enables 64-bit FADT addresses by
    default. If regressions are reported against such change, this patch should
    be bisected and reverted.
    Note that 64-bit FACS favor and 64-bit firmware waking vector favor are
    excluded by this commit in order not to break OSPMs. Lv Zheng.

    Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74021
    Link: https://github.com/acpica/acpica/commit/4da56eea
    Reported-and-tested-by: Oswald Buddenhagen <email address hidden>
    Signed-off-by: Lv Zheng <email address hidden>
    Signed-off-by: Bob Moore <email address hidden>
    Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <email address hidden>
    Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa <email address hidden>
    Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <email address hidden>

:040000 040000 0b002dc7d6e5abe0ded978926361d88efd5a0f88 27c36ea102b1622ded7beecbca477f62fa33922a M include