On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 09:13:34PM +0300, Schmauss, Erik wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ferry Toth <ftoth@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 12:37 PM > > To: Moore, Robert <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx>; Nikolaus Voss > > <nikolaus.voss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Shevchenko, Andriy > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>; Schmauss, Erik <erik.schmauss@xxxxxxxxx>; > > Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jacek Anaszewski > > <jacek.anaszewski@xxxxxxxxx>; Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>; Dan Murphy > > <dmurphy@xxxxxx>; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devel@xxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; nv@xxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: make acpi_load_table() return table index > > > > Op 12-09-19 om 16:19 schreef Moore, Robert: > > > Nikolaus, > > > The ability to unload an ACPI table (especially AML tables such as SSDTs) is in > > the process of being deprecated in ACPICA -- since it is also deprecated in the > > current ACPI specification. This is being done because of the difficulty of > > deleting the namespace entries for the table. FYI, Windows does not properly > > support this function either. > > > > I really hope this is not the case. On x86 loading/unloading SSDTs has proven to > > be a powerful way to handle reconfigurable hardware without rebooting and > > without requiring dedicated platform drivers. Same for user plugable hardware > > on i2c/spi busses. > > > > This has worked before and will violate the "don't break user space" rule. > > If the table index wasn't being used, how did this work before? > Which commit broke this? > > Bob and I are trying to understand if this is a regression or a new feature request... It is a regression as I explained in my bisecting message. Before it uses acpi_tb_* API directly. I thought Bob already got the idea. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
