On 2015/3/18 23:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 09:18:20 AM Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:33:29AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2015年03月13日 19:04, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 03:28:45AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
[...]
/*
- acpi_boot_table_init() called from setup_arch(), always.
- find RSDP and get its address, and then find XSDT
- extract all tables and checksums them all
- check ACPI FADT revision
*/ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void) {
- check ACPI FADT HW reduced flag
- We can parse ACPI boot-time tables such as MADT after
- this function is called.
- struct acpi_table_header *table;
- struct acpi_table_fadt *fadt;
- acpi_status status;
- acpi_size tbl_size;
- /*
- Enable ACPI instead of device tree unless
- ACPI has been disabled explicitly (acpi=off), or
@@ -351,19 +318,52 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void) (!param_acpi_force && of_scan_flat_dt(dt_scan_depth1_nodes, NULL))) return;
- enable_acpi();
- /* Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser. */ if (acpi_table_init()) {
Since we disable ACPI in default, it is a bit strange for me to init all the ACPI tables and parse FADT when ACPI is disabled, could you put some comments here to clarify the purpose? other than that, it is looks good to me.
Ok, the purpose was to make things simpler, but I think that given current code it is not 100% safe to init ACPI tables with acpi_disabled == 1.
To me having to enable ACPI to parse the tables and check *if* ACPI tables are there is a bit crazy, but I agree with you that given current code it is safer.
Patch rewritten, here below, please have a look, test it and rework bits as needed, I added comments where I thought they were needed but please add to that if you feel it is worth it.
It should be easy to split, let me know if you want an incremental version.
This one is much better, pretty fine to me, thanks!
I assume that this patch is cleanup patch on top of ARM64 ACPI core patches, right?
For the records, I created a branch with my patch split over some of your patches, even though I think to make things simpler it is best to apply it as a single patch on top of your series,
I agree. In particular, the patches that have already been reviewed and ACKed won't need to be reviewed again this way which seems to be crucially important to me.
I will prepare the commit log for the single patch version too.
Thanks!
Hanjun, please add this one to the series when ready.
Sure, I will.
Thanks Hanjun