linux-kernel - Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v7 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi" and pass acpi=force to enable ACPI

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: <CAOZdJXXe+29rux1L3QYBX0yHLy3kdi+ZJrXVd=XfgYN=R6DtKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:08:24 -0600
From:	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
To:	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org, wangyijing@...wei.com,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	phoenix.liyi@...wei.com, Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v7 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce
 early_param for "acpi" and pass acpi=force to enable ACPI

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> What is the reason to assume that DT is preferred over ACPI?  I would
> have thought that if ACPI is present, then it means we're on an ARM64
> server platform, and therefore it should be used.  It seems silly to
> require acpi=force on every ARM64 server platform.

So it looks like there's a whole conversation about this already in
this thread that I didn't notice.  However, reading through all of it,
I still don't understand sure why the presence of ACPI tables is
insufficient to enable ACPI.  In what situation would we want to
ignore ACPI tables that are present?

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
--
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/