On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 09:18:20 AM Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:33:29AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > On 2015年03月13日 19:04, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 03:28:45AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >>> /*
> > >>> * acpi_boot_table_init() called from setup_arch(), always.
> > >>> * 1. find RSDP and get its address, and then find XSDT
> > >>> * 2. extract all tables and checksums them all
> > >>> * 3. check ACPI FADT revision
> > >>> + * 4. check ACPI FADT HW reduced flag
> > >>> *
> > >>> * We can parse ACPI boot-time tables such as MADT after
> > >>> * this function is called.
> > >>> */
> > >>> void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
> > >>> {
> > >>> + struct acpi_table_header *table;
> > >>> + struct acpi_table_fadt *fadt;
> > >>> + acpi_status status;
> > >>> + acpi_size tbl_size;
> > >>> +
> > >>> /*
> > >>> * Enable ACPI instead of device tree unless
> > >>> * - ACPI has been disabled explicitly (acpi=off), or
> > >>> @@ -351,19 +318,52 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
> > >>> (!param_acpi_force && of_scan_flat_dt(dt_scan_depth1_nodes, NULL)))
> > >>> return;
> > >>>
> > >>> - enable_acpi();
> > >>> -
> > >>> /* Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser. */
> > >>> if (acpi_table_init()) {
> > >>
> > >> Since we disable ACPI in default, it is a bit strange for me to init all
> > >> the ACPI tables and parse FADT when ACPI is disabled, could you
> > >> put some comments here to clarify the purpose? other than that, it is looks
> > >> good to me.
> > >
> > > Ok, the purpose was to make things simpler, but I think that given
> > > current code it is not 100% safe to init ACPI tables with
> > > acpi_disabled == 1.
> > >
> > > To me having to enable ACPI to parse the tables and check *if* ACPI tables
> > > are there is a bit crazy, but I agree with you that given current code
> > > it is safer.
> > >
> > > Patch rewritten, here below, please have a look, test it and rework
> > > bits as needed, I added comments where I thought they were needed but
> > > please add to that if you feel it is worth it.
> > >
> > > It should be easy to split, let me know if you want an incremental
> > > version.
> >
> > This one is much better, pretty fine to me, thanks!
> >
> > I assume that this patch is cleanup patch on top of ARM64 ACPI
> > core patches, right?
>
> For the records, I created a branch with my patch split over some
> of your patches, even though I think to make things simpler it is best
> to apply it as a single patch on top of your series,
I agree. In particular, the patches that have already been reviewed and
ACKed won't need to be reviewed again this way which seems to be crucially
important to me.
> I will prepare the commit log for the single patch version too.
Thanks!
Hanjun, please add this one to the series when ready.
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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
