On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:14:50PM +0000, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, March 02, 2015 12:00:21 PM Al Stone wrote:
> > On 03/02/2015 10:29 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:36:24AM +0000, al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi-blacklist.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi-blacklist.c
> > >> new file mode 100644
> > >> index 0000000..1be6a56
> > >> --- /dev/null
> > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi-blacklist.c
> > >> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> > >> +/*
> > >> + * ARM64 Specific ACPI Blacklist Support
> > >> + *
> > >> + * Copyright (C) 2015, Linaro Ltd.
> > >> + * Author: Al Stone <al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> + *
> > >> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > >> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > >> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > >> + */
> > >> +
> > >> +#define pr_fmt(fmt) "ACPI: " fmt
> > >> +
> > >> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> > >> +
> > >> +/* The arm64 ACPI blacklist is currently empty. */
> > >> +int __init acpi_blacklisted(void)
> > >> +{
> > >> + return 0;
> > >> +}
> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi-osi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi-osi.c
> > >> new file mode 100644
> > >> index 0000000..bb351f4
> > >> --- /dev/null
> > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi-osi.c
> > >> @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
> > >> +/*
> > >> + * ARM64 Specific ACPI _OSI Support
> > >> + *
> > >> + * Copyright (C) 2015, Linaro Ltd.
> > >> + * Author: Al Stone <al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> + *
> > >> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > >> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > >> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > >> + */
> > >> +
> > >> +#define pr_fmt(fmt) "ACPI: " fmt
> > >> +
> > >> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> > >> +
> > >> +/*
> > >> + * Consensus is to deprecate _OSI for all new ACPI-supported architectures.
> > >> + * So, for arm64, reduce _OSI to a warning message, and tell the firmware
> > >> + * nothing of value.
> > >> + */
> > >> +u32 acpi_osi_handler(acpi_string interface, u32 supported)
> > >> +{
> > >> + pr_warn("_OSI was called, but is deprecated for this architecture.\n");
> > >> + return false;
> > >> +}
> > >
> > > This kinda feels backwards to me. If _OSI is going away, then the default
> > > should be "the architecture doesn't need to do anything", rather than have
> > > new architectures defining a bunch of empty, useless stub code.
> > >
> > > Anyway we could make this the default in core code and have architectures
> > > that *do* want _OSI override that behaviour, instead of the other way around?
> > >
> > We could do that; I personally don't have a strong preference either way,
> > so I'm inclined to make it whatever structure Rafael thinks is proper since
> > it affects ACPI code most. That being said, the current patch structure
> > made sense to me since it wasn't distorting existing code much -- and given
> > the pure number of x86/ia64 machines vs ARM machines using ACPI, that seemed
> > the more cautious approach.
> >
> > @Rafael: do you have an opinion/preference?
>
> My preference is to avoid changes in the existing code at least for the time
> being. Especially if the changes in question are going to affect ia64, unless
> you have an Itanium machine where you can readily test those, that is. :-)
Well, this code doesn't even need to compiled for ia64 if we have those
architectures that want to use _OSI select a Kconfig symbol for it, so I
don't think the testing argument is really that valid. I appreciate that you
want to avoid changing the existing code, but I also don't want to add this
sort of stuff to the architecture code, when it really has nothing to do
with the architecture.
Will
--
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
