From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi, spcr: Make SPCR available to x86 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:49:43 -0600 Message-ID: <745c9e29-f0b4-775b-28f7-8712cdc90fe1@codeaurora.org> References: <20180118150951.28964-1-prarit@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180118150951.28964-1-prarit@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Prarit Bhargava , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Bhupesh Sharma , Lv Zheng , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , graeme.gregory@linaro.org, mark.salter@redhat.com List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 01/18/2018 09:09 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > if (acpi_disabled) { > - if (earlycon_init_is_deferred) > + if (earlycon_acpi_spcr_enable) This patch works for me, so I can ACK it, but first you might want to rename earlycon_acpi_spcr_enable, because these two lines don't make much sense. "If ACPI is disabled, and ACPI SCPR is enabled, then ...." If ACPI is disabled, then how can a variable called "earlycon_acpi_spcr_enable" be true? Would it make more sense to rename it to earlycon_spcr_enable? -- Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.