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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:14:53 +0000
From:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
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 Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:08:24PM +0000, Timur Tabi wrote:
> 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.  

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

> 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).

-- 
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/