From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olof Johansson Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ACPI / ARM64: Remove EXPERT dependency for ACPI on ARM64 Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:48:50 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1460706823-16566-1-git-send-email-broonie@kernel.org> <1460706823-16566-2-git-send-email-broonie@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com ([209.85.213.182]:35402 "EHLO mail-ig0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750732AbcDORsv (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:48:51 -0400 Received: by mail-ig0-f182.google.com with SMTP id gy3so25836083igb.0 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:48:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1460706823-16566-2-git-send-email-broonie@kernel.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Catalin Marinas , Len Brown , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Steve Capper , Graeme Gregory , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "arm@kernel.org" On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > When ACPI was originally merged for arm64 it had only been tested on > emulators and not on real physical platforms and no platforms were > relying on it. This meant that there were concerns that there might be > serious issues attempting to use it on practical systems so it had a > dependency on EXPERT added to warn people that it was in an early stage > of development with very little practical testing. Since then things > have moved on a bit. We have seen people testing on real hardware and > now have people starting to produce some platforms (the most prominent > being the 96boards Cello) which only have ACPI support and which build > and run to some useful extent with mainline. > > This is not to say that ACPI support or support for these systems is > completely done, there are still areas being worked on such as PCI, but > at this point it seems that we can be reasonably sure that ACPI will be > viable for use on ARM64 and that the already merged support works for > the cases it handles. For the AMD Seattle based platforms support > outside of PCI has been fairly complete in mainline a few releases now. > > This is also not to say that we don't have vendors working with ACPI who > are trying do things that we would not consider optimal but it does not > appear that the EXPERT dependency is having a substantial impact on > these vendors. > > Given all this it seems that at this point the EXPERT dependency mainly > creates inconvenience for users with systems that are doing the right > thing and gets in the way of including the ACPI code in the testing that > people are doing on mainline. Removing it should help our ongoing > testing cover those platforms with only ACPI support and help ensure > that when ACPI code is merged any problems it causes for other users are > more easily discovered. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown > Acked-by: Graeme Gregory > Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel > Reviewed-by: Al Stone > Acked-by: Hanjun Guo > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas Acked-by: Olof Johansson -Olof From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:48:50 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] ACPI / ARM64: Remove EXPERT dependency for ACPI on ARM64 In-Reply-To: <1460706823-16566-2-git-send-email-broonie@kernel.org> References: <1460706823-16566-1-git-send-email-broonie@kernel.org> <1460706823-16566-2-git-send-email-broonie@kernel.org> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > When ACPI was originally merged for arm64 it had only been tested on > emulators and not on real physical platforms and no platforms were > relying on it. This meant that there were concerns that there might be > serious issues attempting to use it on practical systems so it had a > dependency on EXPERT added to warn people that it was in an early stage > of development with very little practical testing. Since then things > have moved on a bit. We have seen people testing on real hardware and > now have people starting to produce some platforms (the most prominent > being the 96boards Cello) which only have ACPI support and which build > and run to some useful extent with mainline. > > This is not to say that ACPI support or support for these systems is > completely done, there are still areas being worked on such as PCI, but > at this point it seems that we can be reasonably sure that ACPI will be > viable for use on ARM64 and that the already merged support works for > the cases it handles. For the AMD Seattle based platforms support > outside of PCI has been fairly complete in mainline a few releases now. > > This is also not to say that we don't have vendors working with ACPI who > are trying do things that we would not consider optimal but it does not > appear that the EXPERT dependency is having a substantial impact on > these vendors. > > Given all this it seems that at this point the EXPERT dependency mainly > creates inconvenience for users with systems that are doing the right > thing and gets in the way of including the ACPI code in the testing that > people are doing on mainline. Removing it should help our ongoing > testing cover those platforms with only ACPI support and help ensure > that when ACPI code is merged any problems it causes for other users are > more easily discovered. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown > Acked-by: Graeme Gregory > Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel > Reviewed-by: Al Stone > Acked-by: Hanjun Guo > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas Acked-by: Olof Johansson -Olof