Hello tejun, On 08/23/2013 02:31 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:52:09AM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: >> I understand that you are concerned about stability of the ACPI stuff, >> which I think is a valid point, but most of (if not all) of the >> ACPI-related issues come from ACPI namespace/methods, which is a very >> different thing. Please do not mix up those two. The ACPI > > I have no objection to implementing self-conftained earlyprintk > support. If that's all you want to do, please go ahead but do not > pull in initrd override or ACPICA into it. > >> namespace/methods stuff remains the same and continues to be initialized >> at very late in the boot sequence. >> >> What's making the patchset complicated is acpi_initrd_override(), which >> is intended for developers and allows overwriting ACPI bits at their own >> risk. This feature won't be used by regular users. > > Yeah, please forget about that in earlyboot. It doesn't make any > sense to fiddle with initrd that early during boot. What do you mean by "earlyboot"? And also in your previous mail, I am also a little confused by what you said "the very first stage of boot". Does this mean the stage we are in head_32 or head64.c? If so, could we just do something just as Yinghai did before, that is, Split acpi_override into 2 parts: find and copy. And in "earlyboot", we just do the find, and I think that is less of risk. Or we can just do ACPI override earlier in setup_arch(), not pulling this process that early during boot? Thanks -- Thanks. Zhang Yanfei -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>