On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:50:18PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:47:13PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2015???04???29??? 22:42, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 09:31:03AM -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
On 04/29/2015 09:04 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:44:08AM -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: Any plans for ACPI on 32-bit ARM?
Not that I am aware, but I could be totally wrong. The reason I am adding this here for 32-bit ARM is because the ACPI spec mentioned this.
If you think this is not necessary until we introduce ACPI for ARM32, it can be removed.
I think it should be removed (as long as ACPI cannot be selected on arm32).
I agree.
Now there is no plan for ARM32 ACPI as I know, ACPI for ARM targets for ARM64 based enterprise system at now.
While we're at it, do we *really* need to support CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS_POWER on arm64? It's a deprecated /proc/acpi interface and it would be nice to avoid introducing deprecated behaviour if we can avoid it.
I think we can make it depend on x86 because the compilation units that create that proc dirs (ACPI_BATTERY and ACPI_AC) already depend on it, at the moment compiling drivers/acpi/cm_sbs.c is totally useless on arm64.
Lorenzo