Since the policy is that once we pass acpi=force in the early param, we will not unflatten device tree even if ACPI is disabled in ACPI table init fails, so fix the code by comparinging both acpi_disabled and param_acpi_force before the device tree is unflattened.
CC: Ard Biesheuvel ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun.guo@linaro.org --- arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 3 +++ arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 2 +- arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 2 +- 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h index 59c05d8..e1a8965 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ typedef u64 phys_cpuid_t; extern int acpi_disabled; extern int acpi_noirq; extern int acpi_pci_disabled; +extern bool param_acpi_force;
/* 1 to indicate PSCI 0.2+ is implemented */ static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) @@ -91,6 +92,8 @@ void __init acpi_init_cpus(void); static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; } static inline bool acpi_psci_use_hvc(void) { return false; } static inline void acpi_init_cpus(void) { } + +#define param_acpi_force false #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
#endif /*_ASM_ACPI_H*/ diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c index 5819ef7..fe9d8f0 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ static int enabled_cpus; static bool bootcpu_valid __initdata;
static bool param_acpi_off __initdata; -static bool param_acpi_force __initdata; +bool param_acpi_force __initdata;
static int __init parse_acpi(char *arg) { diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c index b278311..d60b1ad 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c @@ -390,7 +390,7 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
early_ioremap_reset();
- if (acpi_disabled) { + if (acpi_disabled && !param_acpi_force) { unflatten_device_tree(); psci_dt_init(); cpu_read_bootcpu_ops();