On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:07:48AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 27 June 2014 11:49:29 Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > +
> > +static int __init parse_acpi(char *arg)
> > +{
> > + if (!arg)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + /* "acpi=off" disables both ACPI table parsing and interpreter */
> > + if (strcmp(arg, "off") == 0) {
> > + disable_acpi();
> > + }
> > + /* acpi=strict disables out-of-spec workarounds */
> > + else if (strcmp(arg, "strict") == 0) {
> > + acpi_strict = 1;
> > + } else {
> > + /* Core will printk when we return error */
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +early_param("acpi", parse_acpi);
>
> Can you explain in the changelog what happens for the acpi=off case? Does this
> mean we fall back to using data from the dtb instead, or will it just not
> work?
>
> If I understand correctly, this option makes sense on PC systems that will
> still be able to boot using the legacy BIOS services and implicit assumptions
> about the hardware, but that never works on arm64.
>
Yes the way ACPI has been integrated on ARM64 in these patches if you
supply acpi=off it will fall back to DTB if supplied by firmware.
Graeme
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
