From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hanjun Guo Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm/arm64: ACPI: Introduce CONFIG_ACPI_MUST_HAVE_CCA Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 22:14:43 +0800 Message-ID: <554238D3.7050806@linaro.org> References: <1430315049-4663-1-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> <1430315049-4663-2-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> <20150429140445.GA18867@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <5540EB27.8060507@amd.com> <20150429144232.GC18867@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <55423261.4050008@linaro.org> <20150430135018.GH32373@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f169.google.com ([209.85.192.169]:34662 "EHLO mail-pd0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750831AbbD3OPV (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:15:21 -0400 Received: by pdbqa5 with SMTP id qa5so62001260pdb.1 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:15:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150430135018.GH32373@arm.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Will Deacon Cc: Catalin Marinas , "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" , "al.stone@linaro.org" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "leo.duran@amd.com" , "msalter@redhat.com" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Charles Garcia-Tobin , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "lenb@kernel.org" On 2015=E5=B9=B404=E6=9C=8830=E6=97=A5 21:50, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:47:13PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> On 2015=E5=B9=B404=E6=9C=8829=E6=97=A5 22:42, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 09:31:03AM -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wro= te: >>>> On 04/29/2015 09:04 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:44:08AM -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit w= rote: >>>>> Any plans for ACPI on 32-bit ARM? >>>> >>>> Not that I am aware, but I could be totally wrong. The reason I am= adding >>>> this here for 32-bit ARM is because the ACPI spec mentioned this. >>>> >>>> If you think this is not necessary until we introduce ACPI for ARM= 32, it can >>>> be removed. >>> >>> I think it should be removed (as long as ACPI cannot be selected on >>> arm32). >> >> I agree. >> >> Now there is no plan for ARM32 ACPI as I know, ACPI for ARM targets >> for ARM64 based enterprise system at now. > > While we're at it, do we *really* need to support CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS_= POWER > on arm64? It's a deprecated /proc/acpi interface and it would be nice= to > avoid introducing deprecated behaviour if we can avoid it. I agree. It is used for laptop ac adapter and battery, I will look into that and clean it up for ARM64. 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