Re: [PATCH] ACPI / ARM64: Remove EXPERT dependency for ACPI on ARM64

Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-31T12:04:11Z

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 2016/3/31 1:58, Mark Brown wrote:
>> When ACPI was originally merged for arm64 it had only been tested on
>> emulators and not on real physical platforms and no platforms were
>> relying on it. This meant that there were concerns that there might be
>> serious issues attempting to use it on practical systems so it had a
>> dependency on EXPERT added to warn people that it was in an early stage
>> of development with very little practical testing. Since then things
>> have moved on a bit. We have seen people testing on real hardware and
>> now have people starting to produce some platforms (the most prominent
>> being the 96boards Cello) which only have ACPI support and which build
>> and run to some useful extent with mainline.
>>
>> This is not to say that ACPI support or support for these systems is
>> completely done, there are still areas being worked on such as PCI, but
>> at this point it seems that we can be reasonably sure that ACPI will be
>> viable for use on ARM64 and that the already merged support works for
>> the cases it handles. For the AMD Seattle based platforms support
>> outside of PCI has been fairly complete in mainline a few releases now.
>>
>> This is also not to say that we don't have vendors working with ACPI who
>> are trying do things that we would not consider optimal but it does not
>> appear that the EXPERT dependency is having a substantial impact on
>> these vendors.
>>
>> Given all this it seems that at this point the EXPERT dependency mainly
>> creates inconvenience for users with systems that are doing the right
>> thing and gets in the way of including the ACPI code in the testing that
>> people are doing on mainline. Removing it should help our ongoing
>> testing cover those platforms with only ACPI support and help ensure
>> that when ACPI code is merged any problems it causes for other users are
>> more easily discovered.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
>
> Acked-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>> index 82b96ee8624c..bf5dc1ac3446 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
>> menuconfig ACPI
>> bool "ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Support"
>> depends on !IA64_HP_SIM
>> - depends on IA64 || X86 || (ARM64 && EXPERT)
>> + depends on IA64 || X86 || ARM64
>> depends on PCI
>> select PNP
>> default y

OK

What do the ARM64 maintainers think?