From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 33/35] arm : acpi enable efi for acpi Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 12:05:47 +0000 Message-ID: <1423137947.24924.92.camel@citrix.com> References: <1423058539-26403-1-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org> <1423058539-26403-34-git-send-email-parth.dixit@linaro.org> <54D3003B.5070402@linaro.org> <54D368F4020000780005D3F0@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54D368F4020000780005D3F0@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Julien Grall , tim@xen.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, stefano.stabellini@citrix.com, parth.dixit@linaro.org, christoffer.dall@linaro.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 11:58 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 05.02.15 at 06:31, wrote: > >> --- a/xen/common/efi/runtime.c > >> +++ b/xen/common/efi/runtime.c > >> @@ -11,7 +11,13 @@ DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(CHAR16); > >> #ifndef COMPAT > >> > >> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM /* Disabled until runtime services implemented */ > > > > This comment seems irrelevant now. > > > >> + > >> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM_64) && defined(CONFIG_ACPI) > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI > > This is common code, and I can't see ACPI and EFI being always in the > same supported state (or else we could drop one of the two). EFI without ACPI is certainly a possibility on ARM64. Ian.