On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 at 18:08, Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> when the acpi=force option is used,
> the system does not fall back to the device tree (DT).
> If it fails to initialize the ACPI table, it cannot proceed further.
> In such cases, the system should invoke panic() to avoid contradicting
> the user's explicit intent, as failing or
> proceeding with unintended behavior would violate their wishes.
>
Calling panic() at this point does not achieve anything useful,
though. Without ACPI tables or a DT, the only way to observe this
panic message is by using earlycon= with an explicit MMIO address, and
it might be better to limp on instead. Is there anything bad that
might happen because of this, other than the user's wishes getting
violated?
> Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@xxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index e6f66491fbe9..efdf24ed5c3e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -225,6 +225,8 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
> pr_err("Failed to init ACPI tables\n");
> if (!param_acpi_force)
> disable_acpi();
> + else
> + panic("Failed to boot with ACPI tables\n");
> }
>
> done:
> --
> LEVI:{C3F47F37-75D8-414A-A8BA-3980EC8A46D7}
>
