Hi Al,
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:36:24AM +0000, al.stone@linaro.org wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi-blacklist.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi-blacklist.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1be6a56 --- /dev/null +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi-blacklist.c @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +/*
- ARM64 Specific ACPI Blacklist Support
- Copyright (C) 2015, Linaro Ltd.
- Author: Al Stone al.stone@linaro.org
- This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
- published by the Free Software Foundation.
- */
+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "ACPI: " fmt
+#include <linux/acpi.h>
+/* The arm64 ACPI blacklist is currently empty. */ +int __init acpi_blacklisted(void) +{
- return 0;
+} diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi-osi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi-osi.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bb351f4 --- /dev/null +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi-osi.c @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +/*
- ARM64 Specific ACPI _OSI Support
- Copyright (C) 2015, Linaro Ltd.
- Author: Al Stone al.stone@linaro.org
- This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
- published by the Free Software Foundation.
- */
+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "ACPI: " fmt
+#include <linux/acpi.h>
+/*
- Consensus is to deprecate _OSI for all new ACPI-supported architectures.
- So, for arm64, reduce _OSI to a warning message, and tell the firmware
- nothing of value.
- */
+u32 acpi_osi_handler(acpi_string interface, u32 supported) +{
- pr_warn("_OSI was called, but is deprecated for this architecture.\n");
- return false;
+}
This kinda feels backwards to me. If _OSI is going away, then the default should be "the architecture doesn't need to do anything", rather than have new architectures defining a bunch of empty, useless stub code.
Anyway we could make this the default in core code and have architectures that *do* want _OSI override that behaviour, instead of the other way around?
Cheers,
Will