Re: [PATCH] ACPI: processor: Move MWAIT quirk out of acpi_processor.c

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 03:54:18PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 3:44 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 05:03:29PM +0300, Michal Wilczynski wrote:
> > > Commit 2a2a64714d9c ("ACPI: Disable MWAIT via DMI on broken Compal board")
> > > introduced a workaround for MWAIT for a specific x86 system.
> > >
> > > Move the code outside of acpi_processor.c to acpi/x86/ directory for
> > > consistency and rename the functions associated with it, so their names
> > > start with "acpi_proc_quirk_" to make the goal obvious.
> > >
> > > No intentional functional impact.
> >
> > Except for:
> >
> > ia64-linux-ld: drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.o: in function `acpi_early_processor_control_setup':
> > acpi_processor.c:(.init.text+0x712): undefined reference to `acpi_proc_quirk_mwait_check'
> > ia64-linux-ld: drivers/acpi/processor_pdc.o: in function `acpi_early_processor_set_pdc':
> > processor_pdc.c:(.init.text+0x72): undefined reference to `acpi_proc_quirk_mwait_check'
> >
> > which breaks all ia64 builds.
> >
> > Time to retire that architecture yet ? No one but me seems to even
> > build test it.
> 
> Including 0-day it seems.  This had been in linux-next for several weeks.

IIRC someone explicitly asked to shut down 0-day on ia64. Maybe I'm mistaken?
I would suggest to ask internally Dave Hansen et al for this.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko