[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:07:31 +0300
From: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@...el.com>
To: "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@...el.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Tirdea, Irina" <irina.tirdea@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/10] acpi: install SSDT tables from initrd
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Octavian Purdila
<octavian.purdila@...el.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Zheng, Lv <lv.zheng@...el.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> IMO, there is already a similar function upstreamed:
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c85cc81
>> Could it work for your use case?
>
> Yes, it is basically the same.
>
> The only difference is on how we handle taint. I think we should use a
> new taint for overlays and that we don't need to disable lockdep.
>
> BTW, why is lockdep disabled when we override?
The other thing I forgot to mention is that I think we should allow
installing new tables even if CONFIG_ACPI_INITRD_TABLE_OVERRIDE is not
selected. IMO the override and overlay functionality is different,
with the latter being more then a debug option.
I will prepare a patch for the next version of the series to decouple
installing new tables from CONFIG_ACPI_INITRD_TABLE_OVERRIDE.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists