On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 06:30:06PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > 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? It does rather depend why the user specified acpi=force, it's kind of an unusual thing to specify on most systems...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
