On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 11:00:12AM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 03:00:57PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote: > > The ACPI processor driver is not currently enabled for RISC-V. > > This is required to enable CPU related functionalities like > > LPI and CPPC. Hence, enable ACPI_PROCESSOR for RISC-V. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > index f819e760ff19..9a920752171c 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ config ACPI_CPPC_LIB > > > > config ACPI_PROCESSOR > > tristate "Processor" > > - depends on X86 || ARM64 || LOONGARCH > > + depends on X86 || ARM64 || LOONGARCH || RISCV > > select ACPI_PROCESSOR_IDLE > > select ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS if X86 || LOONGARCH > > select THERMAL > > -- > > 2.34.1 > > > > Hi Sunil, > > Typically we'll want the Kconfig changes to come at the end of a series, > or squashed into the patch that adds support for it, otherwise there's > risk of build breakage during bisection. In this case, we're safe because > the two new functions (I looked ahead) have __weak versions when they're > not present. > Sure. Let me swap the order of the patches. > Also, interestingly, it looks like this ancient line > > obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR) += processor.o > > in drivers/acpi/Makefile should be removed, since there's no > drivers/acpi/processor.c file. I guess the make process silently > filters object files which don't have corresponding source files? > Maybe we should write a Makefile analyzer to see what other lines > can be removed... > Interesting. Hi Rafael, any thoughts? > Anyway, for this patch, which I'd prefer to be swapped in order with > the other patch, or just squashed into the other patch, > I prefer to keep as 2 separate patches. I will swap the order. > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Thanks! Sunil
