On Sat, 23 Nov 2013 16:38:54 +0000, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Yeah, that is a really big problem. At the very least push the hacks back into ACPICA and make that project sort it out (add stub functions if needed). I don't like seeing the kernel having #ifdef blocks to stub out normal ACPI paths. g. -- 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
