On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 10:43:50PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> 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.
So, is it a concern or not? I cannot understand from the above whether you
care about 4% or not.
If you do, I guess you can make a piece of ACPI code available through another
Kconfig option but keep it in the ACPI hierarchy.
Because no matter how you look at it, it is ACPI code which is trying to be
generic and failing at that.
Unless you scrub it completely and make it a generic thing which is used by
ACPI too.
Which would be a separate patchset.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
