On 2015/3/17 11:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:36:47 AM Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2015/3/17 10:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 09:08:45 AM Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> On 2015/3/17 7:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, March 16, 2015 08:14:52 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>> On 2015年03月14日 05:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, March 13, 2015 04:14:29 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/ia64/Kconfig b/arch/ia64/Kconfig
>>>>>>>> index 074e52b..e8728d7 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/ia64/Kconfig
>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/ia64/Kconfig
>>>>>>>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ config IA64
>>>>>>>> select ARCH_MIGHT_HAVE_PC_SERIO
>>>>>>>> select PCI if (!IA64_HP_SIM)
>>>>>>>> select ACPI if (!IA64_HP_SIM)
>>>>>>>> + select ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP if ACPI
>>>>>>>> select ARCH_MIGHT_HAVE_ACPI_PDC if ACPI
>>>>>>>> select HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK
>>>>>>>> select HAVE_IDE
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>>>>>>>> index b7d31ca..9804431 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>>>>>>>> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ config X86_64
>>>>>>>> ### Arch settings
>>>>>>>> config X86
>>>>>>>> def_bool y
>>>>>>>> + select ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP if ACPI
>>>>>>> One more nit. If you did
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + select ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP if ACPI_SLEEP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> here (and above for ia64), you'd avoid having to make ACPI_SLEEP
>>>>>>> depend on ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP which goes somewhat backwards.
>>>>>> In sleep.c,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP
>>>>>> acpi_target_system_state()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP depends on SUSPEND || HIBERNATION,
>>>>>> which one of them will be enabled on ARM64 so ACPI_SLEEP
>>>>>> will also enabled too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if we
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +select ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP if ACPI_SLEEP
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +acpi-$(CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP) += sleep.o
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it will lead to errors for acpi_target_system_state() that
>>>>>> is declared but not defined, so I will keep the code as
>>>>>> it is, what do you think?
>>>>> No, we need to hash this out. Having two different Kconfig options meaning
>>>>> almost the same thing (ACPI_SLEEP and ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP) is beyond ugly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you need ACPI_SLEEP on ARM64 at all?
>>>> No, at least for now we don't need it, the spec for sleep is not ready for
>>>> ARM64 arch, so ACPI_SLEEP will not work at all on ARM64.
>>> Well, so what about selecting ACPI_SLEEP from the architectures that use it?
>> Do you mean remove CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP and
>>
>> +acpi-$(CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP) += sleep.o
>>
>> as well (also need to remove duplicate #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP in sleep.c if
>> we doing so)?
> Well, almost. There is one problem with that, becuase sleep.c contains code
> outside of the ACPI_SLEEP-dependent blocks. That code is used for powering
> off ACPI platforms.
>
> I guess you don't want that code on ARM too, right?
Yes, you are right.
>
> Perhaps we can use ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY for that? ARM64 will be the
Sorry, I can't fully understand your intention here, could you please
explain it more?
Let me guess a little bit. Do you mean use ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY for
powering off ACPI platforms? if so, I guess it's not a good idea, ACPI spec
only says that S4BIOS is not supported on HW-reduced ACPI platforms, S5
has no such limitation, if I miss something here, please let me know.
> only arch setting it at least for the time being, is that correct?
That's pretty sure for now.
Thanks
Hanjun
--
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
