On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:21:59 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > It's blindingly obvious that acpi=off is there to disable ACPI at boot. > > We either support that option or we don't -- none of this `oh, well you > > can use it in this specific case I suppose' rubbish. I'm not questioning > > your use-case, but there's really no need to talk about an `orderly > > adoption' when all you need to say is that your ACPI is busted and passing > > acpi=off lets you boot with a devicetree. > > Maybe we should set a taint bit or give some other indication that > we're using a flag to work around breakage. Nope. No taint. Maybe a log message, but there are perfectly valid reasons to use acpi=off, such as the user has a DT for the hardware that moves all the PM operations into the kernel-proper to tune for a very specific use case. This moves outside the support envelope, but that doesn't make it a bad thing or the wrong thing to do. 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
