Hi Ard. > > 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? IMHO, the most weird thing is progressing boot with acpi table although it failed to initailise. in this situation continuing to boot maybe dead in unexepceted places. I think it would be better to prevent futher progress by calling the panic() in this situation.
