On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 02:55:24PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> > From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > When it's a Xen domain0 booting with ACPI, it will supply a /chosen and
> > a /hypervisor node in DT. So check if it needs to enable ACPI.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 12 ++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> > index d1ce8e2..4e92be0 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> > @@ -67,10 +67,13 @@ static int __init dt_scan_depth1_nodes(unsigned long node,
> > {
> > /*
> > * Return 1 as soon as we encounter a node at depth 1 that is
> > - * not the /chosen node.
> > + * not the /chosen node, or /hypervisor node when running on Xen.
> > */
> > - if (depth == 1 && (strcmp(uname, "chosen") != 0))
> > - return 1;
> > + if (depth == 1 && (strcmp(uname, "chosen") != 0)) {
> > + if (!xen_initial_domain() || (strcmp(uname, "hypervisor") != 0))
> > + return 1;
> > + }
> > +
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> As this is changing the semantic of an "empty" DT, we should consider
> now if there's anything else that might also need to exist in an "empty"
> DT. We don't want to change this again in future if we don't have to,
> given the compatiblity nightmare that's sure to result.
>
> We should also consider if the "hypervisor" node name is sufficient (I
> think it is, but let's not assume anything).
>From Xen point of view I think it is enough: real hardware is described
in ACPI anyway and anything hypervisor related can be done via
hypercalls once Xen support is discovered, for which the hypervisor node
is sufficient.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
