From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hanjun Guo Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/21] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:46:46 +0800 Message-ID: <55116AC6.9060500@linaro.org> References: <1426077587-1561-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150318190509.GM10863@arm.com> <550A4BFD.4070804@huawei.com> <20150320185400.GK1474@arm.com> <550CE2CE.4080508@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.220.44]:33495 "EHLO mail-pa0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752290AbbCXNrD (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:47:03 -0400 Received: by pabxg6 with SMTP id xg6so213544399pab.0 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 06:47:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: Will Deacon , Hanjun Guo , Catalin Marinas , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Olof Johansson , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Arnd Bergmann , Mark Rutland , "graeme.gregory@linaro.org" , Sudeep Holla , "jcm@redhat.com" , Marc Zyngier , Mark Brown , Robert Richter , Timur Tabi , Ashwin Chaugule , "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" linux On 2015=E5=B9=B403=E6=9C=8824=E6=97=A5 02:32, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Sat, 21 Mar 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> +CC Parth Dixit, Stefano Stabellini. >> >> On 2015=E5=B9=B403=E6=9C=8821=E6=97=A5 02:54, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:09:33AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>> On 2015/3/19 3:05, Will Deacon wrote: >>>>> If you can get that in place, I'm not opposed to putting this int= o >>>>> linux-next ahead of the firmware summit in San Jose next week. No= te that >>>>> this is not a commitment for 4.1, since I'm keen to see the outco= mes of >>>>> next week before setting anything in stone. >>>> >>>> OK, I will stick to this mailing list and respond as soon as I can= =2E >>> >>> This doesn't even build for me: >>> >>> >>> $ make ARCH=3Darm64 CROSS_COMPILE=3Daarch64-none-linux-gnu- allmodc= onfig >>> $ make ARCH=3Darm64 CROSS_COMPILE=3Daarch64-none-linux-gnu- Image >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> In file included from drivers/xen/acpi.c:33:0: >> >> Sorry, I didn't build ACPI with XEN enabled on ARM64. >> >>> include/xen/acpi.h: In function =E2=80=98xen_acpi_sleep_register=E2= =80=99: >>> include/xen/acpi.h:102:3: error: =E2=80=98acpi_suspend_lowlevel=E2=80= =99 undeclared (first >>> use in this function) >>> acpi_suspend_lowlevel =3D xen_acpi_suspend_lowlevel; >> >> acpi_suspend_lowlevel is defined only for X86 and IA64 for now. >> >>> ^ >>> include/xen/acpi.h:102:3: note: each undeclared identifier is repor= ted only >>> once for each function it appears in >>> drivers/xen/acpi.c: In function =E2=80=98xen_acpi_notify_hypervisor= _state=E2=80=99: >>> drivers/xen/acpi.c:61:2: error: implicit declaration of function >>> =E2=80=98HYPERVISOR_dom0_op=E2=80=99 [-Werror=3Dimplicit-function-d= eclaration] >>> HYPERVISOR_dom0_op(&op); >> >> And this is only for x86: >> ./arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h:HYPERVISOR_dom0_op(struct >> xen_platform_op *platform_op) >> >>> ^ >>> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors >>> make[2]: *** [drivers/xen/acpi.o] Error 1 >>> make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... >>> make[1]: *** [drivers/xen] Error 2 >>> make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... >>> make: *** [drivers] Error 2 >>> >>> >>> Am I missing some other patches? >> >> No, you miss nothing. Parth Dixit is still working on XEN ACPI for >> ARM64, before it's in full function, how about introduce a Kconfig >> CONFIG_XEN_ACPI and let it depends on x86? when XEN ACPI for ARM64 >> comes, we can enable ARM64 for CONFIG_XEN_ACPI and fix the problems >> above. >> >> Stefano, Parth, what do you think? > > To be precise, Parth is working on ACPI enablement for the Xen > hypervisor at the moment (on the Xen tree), I don't think he has any > patches for Linux (Dom0 is the key use case). The two works could be > carried on in parallel, even though you would obviously need Parth's = Xen > patches to test the Linux side. Sure, I saw a workaround patch for the Linux side, if Parth need any help for the further development, I will be there. > > That said, I am OK with disabling ACPI for Xen on ARM and ARM64 for n= ow > -- I wouldn't want to cause any significant delays to your patch seri= es. Thanks! Hanjun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html