Re: [PATCH v5 3/9] ACPI: Enable PPTT support on ARM64

Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-01-05T22:07:35Z

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 12/13/2017 11:26 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 04:23:24PM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>>>
>>> Now that we have a PPTT parser, in preparation for its use
>>> on arm64, lets build it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
>>> drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 3 +++
>>> drivers/acpi/Makefile | 1 +
>>> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>>> index a93339f5178f..e62fd1e08c1f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>>> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ config ARM64
>>> select ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY if ACPI
>>> select ACPI_MCFG if ACPI
>>> select ACPI_SPCR_TABLE if ACPI
>>> + select ACPI_PPTT if ACPI
>>> select ARCH_CLOCKSOURCE_DATA
>>> select ARCH_HAS_DEBUG_VIRTUAL
>>> select ARCH_HAS_DEVMEM_IS_ALLOWED
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>>> index 46505396869e..df7aebf0af0e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>>> @@ -545,6 +545,9 @@ config ACPI_CONFIGFS
>>> if ARM64
>>> source "drivers/acpi/arm64/Kconfig"
>>> +
>>> +config ACPI_PPTT
>>> + bool
>>
>>
>> We need to make a choice here. Either PPTT is considered ARM64 only and
>> we move code and config to drivers/acpi/arm64/Kconfig or we leave it in
>> drivers/acpi/pptt.c and we add a Kconfig entry in drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>> (and we make pptt.c compile on !ARM64 - which is what it should be given
>> that there is nothing ARM64 specific in it).
>
>
> No one else has expressed and opinion about this here..
>
> So i'm not sure what to think.
>
> OTOH a lot of people didn't like it when I had it in the arm64 directory,
> which was my original opinion. It seems other people thought that at some
> point in the future other ACPI platforms would want to use it so putting it
> in the arm64 directory was a mistake.

In my view it may go directly into drivers/acpi/ for the time being.

That said, going forward it may be useful to add a special
subdirectory under drivers/acpi/ for these "table drivers" as we seem
to be acquiring them at alarming rate.

> So, I'm leaning towards leaving it like it is, under the assumption that
> when someone puts in the effort to verify it on another ACPI platform they
> can move the config option up 6 lines. In the meantime I don't think it
> should be enabled on platforms where it hasn't been tested or is basically
> blocked (cpu_cacheinfo->cpu_map_populated) from executing or there isn't
> currently any benefit.

Agreed.

Thanks,
Rafael