[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <24266640.LfmLNjZWAc@kreacher>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 23:03:47 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Shiyang Ruan <ruansy.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, len.brown@...el.com, pavel@....cz,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
Cao jin <caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/acpi: Drop duplicate BOOT table initialization
On Friday, November 15, 2019 10:24:24 AM CET Shiyang Ruan wrote:
> From: Cao jin <caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
>
> ACPI BOOT table is initialized in both acpi_boot_table_init &
> acpi_boot_init of setup_arch, but its usage is quite late at the end of
> start_kernel. It should be safe to drop one of them. Since it is less
> related with table init, drop it from there.
Well, "It should be safe to drop one of them" is kind of a weak justification.
I need to be convinced that one of them is redundant. At this point I am not.
> Signed-off-by: Cao jin <caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
> Cc: <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Shiyang Ruan <ruansy.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> It existed since git repo is built, so it might has its reason? The
> patch is not tested since I don't have BOOT table in my firmware.
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> index 04205ce127a1..ca1c15bb0b48 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> @@ -1558,8 +1558,6 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
> return;
> }
>
> - acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_BOOT, acpi_parse_sbf);
> -
> /*
> * blacklist may disable ACPI entirely
> */
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists