From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leif Lindholm Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi" and pass acpi=force to enable ACPI Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:31:13 +0000 Message-ID: <20150120123113.GP3827@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <1421247905-3749-5-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150119114255.GF11835@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150119135144.GI11835@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150119151350.21B65C40948@trevor.secretlab.ca> <54BD3803.6020307@redhat.com> <20150119175233.GK11835@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150119180122.GJ21553@leverpostej> <54BE1FEA.5040109@linaro.org> <20150120111032.GB15924@leverpostej> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150120111032.GB15924@leverpostej> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: Hanjun Guo , Catalin Marinas , "jcm@redhat.com" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Ard Biesheuvel , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" , Will Deacon , "wangyijing@huawei.com" , Rob Herring , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Al Stone , Timur Tabi , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , Charles Garcia-Tobin , "phoenix.liyi@huawei.com" , Robert Richter , Jason Cooper , Arnd Bergmann , Marc Zyngier , Mark Brown , Bjorn Helgaas List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:10:32AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > index 54e39e3..8268c7b 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > @@ -371,6 +371,31 @@ static void __init request_standard_resources(void) > > } > > } > > > > +int __init dt_scan_chosen(unsigned long node, const char *uname, > > + int depth, void *data) > > +{ > > + const char *p; > > + > > + if (depth != 1 || !data || > > + (strcmp(uname, "chosen") != 0 && strcmp(uname, "chosen@0") != 0)) > > + return 0; > > Do we ever generate chosen@0, and do we even accept that? This probably originates from some stupid cargo-culting on my side, based on some of the PPC-specific workarounds for old machines remaining in drivers/of/*. It should go. / Leif From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754762AbbATMbV (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2015 07:31:21 -0500 Received: from mail-we0-f179.google.com ([74.125.82.179]:61137 "EHLO mail-we0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753194AbbATMbS (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2015 07:31:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:31:13 +0000 From: Leif Lindholm To: Mark Rutland Cc: Hanjun Guo , Catalin Marinas , "jcm@redhat.com" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Ard Biesheuvel , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" , Will Deacon , "wangyijing@huawei.com" , Rob Herring , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Al Stone , Timur Tabi , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , Charles Garcia-Tobin , "phoenix.liyi@huawei.com" , Robert Richter , Jason Cooper , Arnd Bergmann , Marc Zyngier , Mark Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "graeme.gregory@linaro.org" , Randy Dunlap , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" , Sudeep Holla , Olof Johansson Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi" and pass acpi=force to enable ACPI Message-ID: <20150120123113.GP3827@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <1421247905-3749-5-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150119114255.GF11835@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150119135144.GI11835@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150119151350.21B65C40948@trevor.secretlab.ca> <54BD3803.6020307@redhat.com> <20150119175233.GK11835@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150119180122.GJ21553@leverpostej> <54BE1FEA.5040109@linaro.org> <20150120111032.GB15924@leverpostej> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150120111032.GB15924@leverpostej> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:10:32AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > index 54e39e3..8268c7b 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > @@ -371,6 +371,31 @@ static void __init request_standard_resources(void) > > } > > } > > > > +int __init dt_scan_chosen(unsigned long node, const char *uname, > > + int depth, void *data) > > +{ > > + const char *p; > > + > > + if (depth != 1 || !data || > > + (strcmp(uname, "chosen") != 0 && strcmp(uname, "chosen@0") != 0)) > > + return 0; > > Do we ever generate chosen@0, and do we even accept that? This probably originates from some stupid cargo-culting on my side, based on some of the PPC-specific workarounds for old machines remaining in drivers/of/*. It should go. / Leif From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: leif.lindholm@linaro.org (Leif Lindholm) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:31:13 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v7 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi" and pass acpi=force to enable ACPI In-Reply-To: <20150120111032.GB15924@leverpostej> References: <1421247905-3749-5-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150119114255.GF11835@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150119135144.GI11835@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150119151350.21B65C40948@trevor.secretlab.ca> <54BD3803.6020307@redhat.com> <20150119175233.GK11835@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150119180122.GJ21553@leverpostej> <54BE1FEA.5040109@linaro.org> <20150120111032.GB15924@leverpostej> Message-ID: <20150120123113.GP3827@bivouac.eciton.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:10:32AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > index 54e39e3..8268c7b 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > > @@ -371,6 +371,31 @@ static void __init request_standard_resources(void) > > } > > } > > > > +int __init dt_scan_chosen(unsigned long node, const char *uname, > > + int depth, void *data) > > +{ > > + const char *p; > > + > > + if (depth != 1 || !data || > > + (strcmp(uname, "chosen") != 0 && strcmp(uname, "chosen at 0") != 0)) > > + return 0; > > Do we ever generate chosen at 0, and do we even accept that? This probably originates from some stupid cargo-culting on my side, based on some of the PPC-specific workarounds for old machines remaining in drivers/of/*. It should go. / Leif