[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150106141630.GG8829@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 14:16:30 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"hanjun.guo@...aro.org" <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>,
"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Charles Garcia-Tobin <Charles.Garcia-Tobin@....com>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"graeme.gregory@...aro.org" <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
"Kangkang.Shen@...wei.com" <Kangkang.Shen@...wei.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 02:05:12PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 January 2015 11:29:29 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > >> We will work on this both on ASWG and linux ACPI driver side, as Dong
> > > >> and Charles pointed out, _OSI things can be solved in ACPI spec, when
> > > >> that is done, we can modify the kernel driver to fix the problems above.
> > > >
> > > > Which driver?
> > >
> > > the ACPICA core driver as you suggested, sorry for the confusion.
> > >
> > > > What about ACPI_OS_NAME? Would you suggest it is fine to report
> > > > "Microsoft Windows NT" on an ARM system? That _OS_ not _OSI.
> > >
> > > No, not at all. I prefer "Linux"
> > > In include/acpi/acconfig.h, when ACPI_OS_NAME defined, it says:
> > > "OS name, used for the _OS object. The _OS object is essentially
> > > obsolete,..."
> > > for some legacy reasons, we needed "Microsoft Windows NT", but ACPI
> > > for ARM64 on linux is totally new, I think we can change it to
> > > "Linux" when CONFIG_ARM64 as you suggested.
> >
> > We could ignore this change for now if we don't expect the _OS object to
> > be used at all. But do we have any other way to check the AML code for
> > this? Would FWTS catch such obsolete cases?
>
> How about just leaving it out? It's clearly not used for anything
> good, so I don't see the point in passing either Linux or "Microsoft
> Windows NT" here.
Do you mean defining it to NULL (so it ends up as NULL in
acpi_gbl_pre_defined_names) or removing "_OS_" entirely from that array?
I really can't tell what the implications are.
--
Catalin
--
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