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]

Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:18:44 -0600
From:	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC:	"hanjun.guo@...aro.org" <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
	"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"wangyijing@...wei.com" <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"phoenix.liyi@...wei.com" <phoenix.liyi@...wei.com>,
	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
	"jcm@...hat.com" <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 01/28/2015 12:14 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> >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.

> Because ACPI on arm64 is still experimental, no matter how many people
> claim that it is production ready in their private setups.

Fair enough.  Does this mean that passing "acpi=force" on the kernel 
command line is a requirement for ARM64 servers?

>> >In what situation would we want to ignore ACPI tables that are
>> >present?

> When DT tables are also present (and for the first platforms, that's
> highly recommended, though not easily enforceable at the kernel level).

My understanding is that the EFI stub creates a device tree (and it 
contains some important information), so I don't understand how we can 
ever have an ACPI-only platform on ARM64 servers.

-- 
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/