From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752078AbbD3PCC (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:02:02 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:36118 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751476AbbD3PCA (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:02:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:01:55 +0100 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: Will Deacon Cc: "hanjun.guo@linaro.org" , Catalin Marinas , "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" , "al.stone@linaro.org" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "leo.duran@amd.com" , "msalter@redhat.com" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Charles Garcia-Tobin , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "lenb@kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm/arm64: ACPI: Introduce CONFIG_ACPI_MUST_HAVE_CCA Message-ID: <20150430150155.GA27499@red-moon> References: <1430315049-4663-1-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> <1430315049-4663-2-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> <20150429140445.GA18867@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <5540EB27.8060507@amd.com> <20150429144232.GC18867@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <55423261.4050008@linaro.org> <20150430135018.GH32373@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150430135018.GH32373@arm.com> 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 Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:50:18PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:47:13PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > On 2015???04???29??? 22:42, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 09:31:03AM -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: > > >> On 04/29/2015 09:04 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:44:08AM -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: > > >>> Any plans for ACPI on 32-bit ARM? > > >> > > >> Not that I am aware, but I could be totally wrong. The reason I am adding > > >> this here for 32-bit ARM is because the ACPI spec mentioned this. > > >> > > >> If you think this is not necessary until we introduce ACPI for ARM32, it can > > >> be removed. > > > > > > I think it should be removed (as long as ACPI cannot be selected on > > > arm32). > > > > I agree. > > > > Now there is no plan for ARM32 ACPI as I know, ACPI for ARM targets > > for ARM64 based enterprise system at now. > > While we're at it, do we *really* need to support CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS_POWER > on arm64? It's a deprecated /proc/acpi interface and it would be nice to > avoid introducing deprecated behaviour if we can avoid it. I think we can make it depend on x86 because the compilation units that create that proc dirs (ACPI_BATTERY and ACPI_AC) already depend on it, at the moment compiling drivers/acpi/cm_sbs.c is totally useless on arm64. Lorenzo