On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:23:14AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2014年12月25日 01:18, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 02:37:14PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >> +Booting using ACPI tables > >> +------------------------- > >> +The only defined method for passing ACPI tables to the kernel on ARMv8 > >> +is via the UEFI system configuration table. > >> + > >> +Processing of ACPI tables may be disabled by passing acpi=off on the kernel > >> +command line; this is the default behavior. If acpi=force is used, the kernel > >> +will ONLY use device configuration information contained in the ACPI tables. > > > > See my comments to Al around the defaults. I think if only ACPI tables > > are present, we shouldn't panic the kernel if acpi=force is missing but > > continue with ACPI. > > I think we need another patch to implement it, for this patch set,kernel > will panic if no dtb and acpi=off. If no dtb and acpi=off on the kernel command line, I agree that the kernel should panic as it doesn't have any way to get the platform description. > since passing no DT tables to OS but > acpi=force is missing is a corner case, we can do a follow up patch to > fix that, does it make sense? Not entirely. Why would no dtb and no acpi=force be a corner case? I thought this should be the default when only ACPI tables are passed, no need for an additional acpi=force argument. -- Catalin -- 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
