> From: linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew Garrett > Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:39 AM > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 05:05:48PM -0700, Al Stone wrote: > > > For reduced hardware mode, however, I have to rely on the underlying > > ACPICA reference implementation to behave properly. Right now, ACPICA > > relies on compile time changes to implement either reduced HW mode or > > legacy mode so I have to follow suit. When I looked at making ACPICA > > change behavior at runtime, the changes became more and more invasive. > > Since x86/ia64 depend on ACPICA to behave also, that seemed a far > > more dangerous approach to me. > > Ugh. Really? People have been fairly careful about making sure that the > x86 SoC code is selected correctly at runtime, and losing that because > ACPICA is broken would be a shame. I think this is something that needs > to support runtime switching even if there's also support for building > kernels that only implement the reduced hardware profile. If my reading is correct, do you mean x86 SoCs should have already tested the code. So if ARM need ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE to be defined, the <include/acpi/platform/aclinux.h> should have lines like: #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_IS_ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE #define ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE TRUE #endif And ARCH_IS_ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE should only be selected by CONFIG_ARM. Well, I don't have knowledge about "x86 ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE tests", so I don't have any idea on whether the above code or original one can reflect the real world. Thanks and best regards -Lv > > -- > Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > -- > 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 -- 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
