On 08/20/2015 04:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
Hi Al,
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:07:25PM +0100, Al Stone wrote:
Now that we have introduced the bad_madt_entry() function, and that function is being invoked in acpi_table_parse_madt() for us, there is no longer any need to use the BAD_MADT_ENTRY macro, or in the case of arm64, the BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY, too.
Signed-off-by: Al Stone al.stone@linaro.org Acked-by: Catalin Marinas catalin.marinas@arm.com Acked-by: Marc Zyngier marc.zyngier@arm.com Cc: Will Deacon will.deacon@arm.com Cc: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de Cc: Jason Cooper jason@lakedaemon.net
arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 8 -------- arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 2 -- drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 6 ------ 3 files changed, 16 deletions(-)
How are you planning to merge this (and which kernel are you targetting?) You've got Acks for both arm64 and irqchip, so I guess either of those trees could take it.
Yeah, this is a little messy. If I can get into 4.2, that would be nice, but not required -- arm64 already has a usable patch for now, and that's the only arch affected. So, 4.3 was my primary target (which is why I worked with linux-next for these).
Which tree? Yeesh. 1/5 and 5/5 are ACPI only and required for the rest to work properly; 2/5 is arm64, 3/5 is ia64, and 4/5 is x86. ARM folks are the only ones to have provided acks or reviews, however. I guess I was assuming this would have to go in via Rafael's ACPI tree since those are the key parts -- the arch-specific patches would remove safety checks on MADT subtables without replacing them, if they went in before the ACPI patches.
Does that make sense? What do you think?