On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 12:13:58PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 01:58:16PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote: > > Right. All the functions in the file start with the acpi_ prefix. It could > > be kept under arch/x86/kernel/acpi/. The Kconfig symbol X86_MAILBOX_WAKEUP > > would have to live in arch/x86/Kconfig as there is no Kconfig file under > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi. ACPI_MADT_WAKEUP is arch/x86/Kconfig. > > > > Does that sound acceptable? > > Right, this looks kinda weird. You have devicetree thing using ACPI code, > you're trying to carve it out but then it is ACPI code anyway. So why even do > that? > > You can simply leave ACPI enabled on that configuration. I don't see yet what > the point for the split is - saving memory, or...?
I did not want to enable the whole of ACPI code as I need a tiny portion of it. Then yes, saving memory and having a smaller binary were considerations. The only dependency that ACPI_MADT_WAKEUP has on ACPI is the code to read and parse the ACPI table that enumerates the mailbox. (There are a couple of declarations for CPU offlining that need tweaking if I want ACPI_MADT_WAKEUP to not depend on ACPI at all). The DeviceTree firmware only needs the code to wake CPUs up. That is the code I am carving out. Having said that, vmlinux and bzImage increase by 4% if I enable ACPI. Thanks and BR, Ricardo
