From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:36:00 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v9 05/21] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables In-Reply-To: <20150310111931.GU4278@bivouac.eciton.net> References: <1424853601-6675-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1424853601-6675-6-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150305185117.GA17415@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <54FEA4CC.8090000@linaro.org> <20150310111931.GU4278@bivouac.eciton.net> Message-ID: <54FED720.8080401@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2015?03?10? 19:19, Leif Lindholm wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 04:01:16PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>> index 0000000..f052e7a >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ >>>> +/* >>>> + * ARM64 Specific Low-Level ACPI Boot Support >>>> + * >>>> + * Copyright (C) 2013-2014, Linaro Ltd. >>>> + * Author: Al Stone >>>> + * Author: Graeme Gregory >>>> + * Author: Hanjun Guo >>>> + * Author: Tomasz Nowicki >>>> + * Author: Naresh Bhat >>>> + * >>>> + * 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 >>>> +#include >>>> +#include >>>> +#include >>>> +#include >>>> +#include >>>> +#include >>>> +#include >>>> + >>>> +int acpi_noirq; /* skip ACPI IRQ initialization */ >>>> +int acpi_disabled; >>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_disabled); >>>> + >>>> +int acpi_pci_disabled; /* skip ACPI PCI scan and IRQ initialization */ >>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_pci_disabled); >>>> + >>>> +/* >>>> + * __acpi_map_table() will be called before page_init(), so early_ioremap() >>>> + * or early_memremap() should be called here to for ACPI table mapping. >>>> + */ >>>> +char *__init __acpi_map_table(unsigned long phys, unsigned long size) >>>> +{ >>>> + if (!phys || !size) >>> >>> Is there a reason to rule out physical address 0x0 ? >> >> No particular reasons, unless some arch/firmware limits, I'm >> not sure if we need this check (x86 needs it), I'm CC Leif >> to confirm. > > Nothing in UEFI explicitly bans using physical address 0 for anything, > and nothing in the architecture reserves it. So I don't think this > check is necessary. Thanks for the confirmation, will remove the !phys check. Hanjun