linux-kernel - Re: [RFC part1 PATCH 0/7] Make ACPI core running on ARM64

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACRpkdYN6X=Qd1Fyy9dyM7FStMaMMDAQCzQOxX4cwHM-J00kHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:45:58 +0100
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Patch Tracking <patches@...aro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC part1 PATCH 0/7] Make ACPI core running on ARM64

On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:

> I'd agree as soon as someone can convince me that we actually want ACPI
> support in the kernel for ARM64 servers. As far as I'm concerned it's quite
> possible that the people who have worked on this for the past couple of
> years behind closed doors know what they are doing and it will all be
> good, but it's also possible that it turns into a huge trainwreck once
> we see multiple implementations that have fundamentally incompatible
> requirements regarding what they want from ACPI and we end up not doing
> it at all.

Here is a piece I've noticed very clearly in the GPIO subsystem:

ACPI is persued for x86 servers, desktops by all vendors. For
embedded x86 it is persued by Intel *ONLY*. We still get several
embedded GPIO drivers for x86 that use ISA-style portmapped I/O
probing (!)

So, hehe, in init/Kconfig there is still the much-debated Kconfig
option "EMBEDDED"...

Should ACPI for ARM64 be depends on !EMBEDDED?

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/