From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 17:14:05 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
In-Reply-To: <20140911160627.GU6558@xora-haswell.xora.org.uk>
References: <1409583475-6978-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
 <20140911132935.068DCC408F6@trevor.secretlab.ca>
 <20140911153739.GA24416@localhost> <5411C664.4060007@arm.com>
 <20140911160627.GU6558@xora-haswell.xora.org.uk>
Message-ID: <5411CA4D.30202@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org



On 11/09/14 17:06, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 04:57:24PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>

[...]
>> This what we have suggested in past especially for this S-state support.
>> Currently the core acpi code compiles in sleep support unconditionally.
>> That doesn't mean we need to do the same on ARM64, we can easily make
>> sure that's not enabled for ARM64 until we have clarification on how to
>> support them on ARM in ACPI specification.
>>
>> I just pointed out at one "out of spec" workaround done for x86
>> "unconditionally" in the code just to tell that it won't work on ARM.
>> That shouldn't be misunderstood as demand for refactoring as we have no
>> clue how S-state would look on ARM to take up any such task.
>>
> For the sleep.c case I worked on this and sent some updates to Hanjun so
> it should be compiled out in the next version of the patches.
>

Thanks Graeme, that's much better than any hooks/stubs which might fail
depending on ACPI table contents.

Regards,
Sudeep