[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52166909.6080104@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 03:39:53 +0800
From: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei.yes@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>,
Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
robert.moore@...el.com, lv.zheng@...el.com, rjw@...k.pl,
lenb@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...or.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, trenn@...e.de, yinghai@...nel.org,
jiang.liu@...wei.com, wency@...fujitsu.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com,
mgorman@...e.de, minchan@...nel.org, mina86@...a86.com,
gong.chen@...ux.intel.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@...fitbricks.com,
lwoodman@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com, jweiner@...hat.com,
prarit@...hat.com, zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com,
yanghy@...fujitsu.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] x86, acpi: Move acpi_initrd_override() earlier.
Hello tejun,
On 08/23/2013 02:31 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:52:09AM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
>> I understand that you are concerned about stability of the ACPI stuff,
>> which I think is a valid point, but most of (if not all) of the
>> ACPI-related issues come from ACPI namespace/methods, which is a very
>> different thing. Please do not mix up those two. The ACPI
>
> I have no objection to implementing self-conftained earlyprintk
> support. If that's all you want to do, please go ahead but do not
> pull in initrd override or ACPICA into it.
>
>> namespace/methods stuff remains the same and continues to be initialized
>> at very late in the boot sequence.
>>
>> What's making the patchset complicated is acpi_initrd_override(), which
>> is intended for developers and allows overwriting ACPI bits at their own
>> risk. This feature won't be used by regular users.
>
> Yeah, please forget about that in earlyboot. It doesn't make any
> sense to fiddle with initrd that early during boot.
What do you mean by "earlyboot"? And also in your previous mail, I am also
a little confused by what you said "the very first stage of boot". Does
this mean the stage we are in head_32 or head64.c?
If so, could we just do something just as Yinghai did before, that is, Split
acpi_override into 2 parts: find and copy. And in "earlyboot", we just do
the find, and I think that is less of risk. Or we can just do ACPI override
earlier in setup_arch(), not pulling this process that early during boot?
Thanks
--
Thanks.
Zhang Yanfei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists