linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] ACPI / boot: Not all platform require acpi_reduced_hw

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:   Sun, 23 Jul 2017 00:14:27 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] ACPI / boot: Not all platform require acpi_reduced_hw_init()

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 22, 2017 04:53:52 AM Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
>>> > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 06:04:19 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
>>> > I'd rather do it at the time when acpi_reduced_hw_init() actually needs to be
>>> > overridden by at least one platform.
>>>
>>> Do you mean as folded into some other patch or just as a preparatory
>>> patch in some future series?
>
>> Any of the above would work for me.
>
> Logically it should be a separate change as I can see (I have already
> locally prepared patches for that one platform).
>
> Thanks for review.
>
> P.S. Are you going to apply first 3 then from this series?

Yes, I am.