On Friday, November 22, 2013 10:53:09 AM Olof Johansson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Al Stone <al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 11/22/2013 06:25 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:41 PM, <al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> From: Al Stone <al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> Modified #ifdef so that DMI is not used on ARM platforms which > >>> are currently implementing ACPI reduced HW mode. > >> > >> > >> It is really not allowed or is optional? There are various people that > >> want DMI tables on ARM. > >> > >> Rob > > > > > > True. DMI is optional. I see it as orthogonal to > > reduced HW mode; I have to hope that when DMI patches > > are forthcoming they'll do the right thing here. > > > > Is there a better way to do this in the #if ? > > > Doing all of these things at compile time seems odd, shouldn't it be > handled at runtime? What happens when someone wants to build a kernel > that boots both on the reduced hw mode platforms and regular ones? I agree. My suggestion would be to harden dmi_check_system() so that it works if DMI is not present (if it doesn't already). Thanks! -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
