On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:18:44PM +0000, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 01/28/2015 12:14 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >> >So it looks like there's a whole conversation about this already in > >> >this thread that I didn't notice. However, reading through all of it, > >> >I still don't understand sure why the presence of ACPI tables is > >> >insufficient to enable ACPI. > > > Because ACPI on arm64 is still experimental, no matter how many people > > claim that it is production ready in their private setups. > > Fair enough. Does this mean that passing "acpi=force" on the kernel > command line is a requirement for ARM64 servers? Please read my other email and ideally the whole sub-thread. The acpi=force should only be required if the SoC is described (from firmware) by both DT and ACPI. > >> >In what situation would we want to ignore ACPI tables that are > >> >present? > > > When DT tables are also present (and for the first platforms, that's > > highly recommended, though not easily enforceable at the kernel level). > > My understanding is that the EFI stub creates a device tree (and it > contains some important information), so I don't understand how we can > ever have an ACPI-only platform on ARM64 servers. If EFI stub creates the DT itself (not passed by firmware), it will write some information in the chosen node that the rest of the kernel can make use of and take the appropriate decision on whether to use ACPI or not. That's something that will be used by kexec and Xen as well which may want to boot with ACPI tables outside an EFI environment. -- 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
