From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] ACPI: ARM: exclude DMI calls Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 16:38:54 +0000 Message-ID: <20131123163854.GA1817@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1385080915-23430-1-git-send-email-al.stone@linaro.org> <528F9C65.7010302@linaro.org> <4285284.l8TssFvumi@vostro.rjw.lan> <528FF15C.4060300@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:59840 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754401Ab3KWQjD (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Nov 2013 11:39:03 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <528FF15C.4060300@linaro.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Al Stone Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Olof Johansson , Rob Herring , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Linaro Patches , "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" , linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 05:05:48PM -0700, Al Stone wrote: > For reduced hardware mode, however, I have to rely on the underlying > ACPICA reference implementation to behave properly. Right now, ACPICA > relies on compile time changes to implement either reduced HW mode or > legacy mode so I have to follow suit. When I looked at making ACPICA > change behavior at runtime, the changes became more and more invasive. > Since x86/ia64 depend on ACPICA to behave also, that seemed a far > more dangerous approach to me. Ugh. Really? People have been fairly careful about making sure that the x86 SoC code is selected correctly at runtime, and losing that because ACPICA is broken would be a shame. I think this is something that needs to support runtime switching even if there's also support for building kernels that only implement the reduced hardware profile. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org