On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 05:10:46AM +0000, Zheng, Lv wrote: > > From: linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew Garrett > > 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. I don't know if anyone has deployed x86 SoCs with reduced hardware yet, but it seems like something that might happen. > 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. Is ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE supposed to indicate support for the reduced hardware profile, or that the platform *only* implements the reduced hardware profile? -- 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
