On Monday, March 07, 2016 03:53:13 PM Chen, Yu C wrote: > Hi Rafael, > (resend for broken content) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rjwysocki@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:rjwysocki@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > > Rafael J. Wysocki > > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 9:19 PM > > To: Chen, Yu C > > Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List; x86@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-efi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linux > > Kernel Mailing List; linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Rafael J. Wysocki; Len Brown; > > Matt Fleming; Thomas Gleixner; Ingo Molnar; H. Peter Anvin; Zhang, Rui > > Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC v3] ACPI / PM: Fix poweroff issue on HW-full > > platforms without _S5 > > > [cut] > > > bool efi_poweroff_required(void) > > > { > > > - return !!acpi_gbl_reduced_hardware; > > > + return acpi_gbl_reduced_hardware || (acpi_no_s5 && > > > + !pm_power_off); > > > > What if CONFIG_ACPI is not set here? > If CONFIG_ACPI is not set, this file would not > be compiled, because CONFIG_EFI depends on CONFIG_ACPI. OK So the next question will be if efi_poweroff_required() is guaranteed to run after all of the other code that may register alternative power off handling. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
