LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: al.stone@linaro.org
Cc: lenb@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
	robert.moore@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
	fenghua.yu@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	devel@acpica.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org,
	patches@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] ACPI: add arch-specific compilation for _OSI and the blacklist
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:03:22 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2903181.4VVp3X75UK@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2298661.ffvhncbLpr@vostro.rjw.lan>

On Wednesday, February 04, 2015 03:00:15 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 03, 2015 05:21:42 PM al.stone@linaro.org wrote:
> > From: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
> > 
> > Now that all of the _OSI functionality has been separated out, we can
> > provide arch-specific functionality for it.  This also allows us to do
> > the same for the acpi_blacklisted() function.
> > 
> > Whether arch-specific functions are used or not now depends on the config
> > options CONFIG_ACPI_ARCH_SPECIFIC_OSI and CONFIG_ARCH_SPECIFIC_BLACKLIST.
> > By default, both are set false which causes the x86/ia64 versions to be
> > used, just as is done today.  Setting one or both of these options true
> > will cause architecture-specific implementations to be built instead; this
> > patch also provides arm64 implementations.
> > 
> > For x86/ia64, there is no functional change.
> > 
> > For arm64, any use of _OSI will issue a warning that it is deprecated.
> > All use of _OSI will return false -- i.e., it will return no useful
> > information to any firmware using it.  The ability to temporarily turn
> > on _OSI, or turn off _OSI, or affect it in other ways from the command
> > line is no longer available for arm64, either.  The blacklist for ACPI
> > on arm64 is empty.  This will, of course, require ACPI to be enabled
> > for arm64.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/Kconfig         | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/acpi/Makefile        | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
> >  drivers/acpi/blacklist-arm.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/acpi/blacklist.c     |  5 +++++
> >  drivers/acpi/osi-arm.c       | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  5 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >  create mode 100644 drivers/acpi/blacklist-arm.c
> >  create mode 100644 drivers/acpi/osi-arm.c
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> > index 3e3bd35..4190940 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> > @@ -369,6 +369,28 @@ config ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY
> >  
> >  	  If you are unsure what to do, do not enable this option.
> >  
> > +config ACPI_ARCH_SPECIFIC_OSI
> 
> I woulnd't make this and the other one user-selectable.  Let architectures
> select them from their top-level Kconfig files.
> 
> That's what we do with the other CONFIG_ARCH_ things.
> 
> So in the architecture-specific Kconfig you'll have
> 
> config ACPI_ARCH_SPECIFIC_OSI
> 	def_bool n
> 	depends on ACPI
> 
> Moreover, I'd call that ARCH_SPECIFIC_ACPI_OSI.

Or even better, you can define them here (drivers/acpi/Kconfig/) as

config ARCH_SPECIFIC_ACPI_OSI
	def_bool n

and then do

	select ARCH_SPECIFIC_ACPI_OSI if ACPI

as you did in [4/5].


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

  reply	other threads:[~2015-02-04 13:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-02-04  0:21 [PATCH v2 0/5] Start deprecating _OSI on new architectures al.stone
2015-02-04  0:21 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] ACPI: move acpi_os_handler() so it can be made arch-dependent later al.stone
2015-02-04 13:50   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-02-04 22:44     ` Al Stone
2015-02-04 23:21       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-02-04 23:49         ` Al Stone
2015-02-04  0:21 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] ACPI: move _OSI support functions to allow arch-dependent implementation al.stone
2015-02-04  0:21 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] ACPI: add arch-specific compilation for _OSI and the blacklist al.stone
2015-02-04 14:00   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-02-04 14:03     ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2015-02-04 22:46       ` Al Stone
2015-02-04  0:21 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] ACPI: arm64: use the arch-specific ACPI _OSI method and ACPI blacklist al.stone
2015-02-04  0:21 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] ACPI: arm64: use "Linux" as ACPI_OS_NAME for _OS on arm64 al.stone

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=2903181.4VVp3X75UK@vostro.rjw.lan \
    --to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=al.stone@linaro.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=devel@acpica.org \
    --cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=patches@linaro.org \
    --cc=robert.moore@intel.com \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] ACPI: add arch-specific compilation for _OSI and the blacklist' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).