On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:50:18PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:47:13PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > On 2015???04???29??? 22:42, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 09:31:03AM -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: > > >> On 04/29/2015 09:04 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:44:08AM -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: > > >>> Any plans for ACPI on 32-bit ARM? > > >> > > >> Not that I am aware, but I could be totally wrong. The reason I am adding > > >> this here for 32-bit ARM is because the ACPI spec mentioned this. > > >> > > >> If you think this is not necessary until we introduce ACPI for ARM32, it can > > >> be removed. > > > > > > I think it should be removed (as long as ACPI cannot be selected on > > > arm32). > > > > I agree. > > > > Now there is no plan for ARM32 ACPI as I know, ACPI for ARM targets > > for ARM64 based enterprise system at now. > > While we're at it, do we *really* need to support CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS_POWER > on arm64? It's a deprecated /proc/acpi interface and it would be nice to > avoid introducing deprecated behaviour if we can avoid it. I think we can make it depend on x86 because the compilation units that create that proc dirs (ACPI_BATTERY and ACPI_AC) already depend on it, at the moment compiling drivers/acpi/cm_sbs.c is totally useless on arm64. Lorenzo -- 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
