On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 3:10 AM Jiaqing Zhao <jiaqing.zhao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2024-08-20 22:55, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 7:47 AM Jiaqing Zhao > > <jiaqing.zhao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> According to Section 5.2.10 of ACPI Specification, FACS is optional > >> in reduced hardware model. Enable the detection for "Hardware-reduced > >> ACPI support only" build (CONFIG_ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY=y) also. > >> > >> Link: https://github.com/acpica/acpica/commit/ee53ed6b5452612bb44af542b68d605f8b2b1104 > >> Signed-off-by: Jiaqing Zhao <jiaqing.zhao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/acpi/acpica/acglobal.h | 6 +----- > >> drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c | 5 +---- > >> drivers/acpi/acpica/utxfinit.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ > >> include/acpi/acconfig.h | 1 - > >> 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/acglobal.h b/drivers/acpi/acpica/acglobal.h > >> index f4c90fc99be2..309ce8efb4f6 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/acglobal.h > >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/acglobal.h > >> @@ -29,11 +29,7 @@ ACPI_INIT_GLOBAL(u32, acpi_gbl_dsdt_index, ACPI_INVALID_TABLE_INDEX); > >> ACPI_INIT_GLOBAL(u32, acpi_gbl_facs_index, ACPI_INVALID_TABLE_INDEX); > >> ACPI_INIT_GLOBAL(u32, acpi_gbl_xfacs_index, ACPI_INVALID_TABLE_INDEX); > >> ACPI_INIT_GLOBAL(u32, acpi_gbl_fadt_index, ACPI_INVALID_TABLE_INDEX); > >> - > >> -#if (!ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE) > >> -ACPI_GLOBAL(struct acpi_table_facs *, acpi_gbl_FACS); > >> - > >> -#endif /* !ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE */ > >> +ACPI_INIT_GLOBAL(struct acpi_table_facs *, acpi_gbl_FACS, NULL); > >> > >> /* These addresses are calculated from the FADT Event Block addresses */ > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c > >> index 15fa68a5ea6e..356700349b45 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c > >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c > >> @@ -18,7 +18,6 @@ ACPI_MODULE_NAME("tbutils") > >> static acpi_physical_address > >> acpi_tb_get_root_table_entry(u8 *table_entry, u32 table_entry_size); > >> > >> -#if (!ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE) > >> /******************************************************************************* > >> * > >> * FUNCTION: acpi_tb_initialize_facs > >> @@ -37,8 +36,7 @@ acpi_status acpi_tb_initialize_facs(void) > >> struct acpi_table_facs *facs; > >> > >> if (acpi_gbl_FADT.Xfacs && > >> - (!acpi_gbl_FADT.facs > >> - || !acpi_gbl_use32_bit_facs_addresses)) { > >> + (!acpi_gbl_FADT.facs || !acpi_gbl_use32_bit_facs_addresses)) { > >> (void)acpi_get_table_by_index(acpi_gbl_xfacs_index, > >> ACPI_CAST_INDIRECT_PTR(struct > >> acpi_table_header, > > > > I'm not sure how this change is related to the rest of the patch. > > > > It doesn't appear to be present in the original commit pointed to by > > the Link tag. > > This change here is just indention fix, in original acpica, the indention is just fine. > > Shall I remove this change? Yes, please. If you send a Linux counterpart of an ACPICA change, it should not contain any changes in addition to what was there in the original ACPICA commit. Thanks!