On 01/28/2015 12:14 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>So it looks like there's a whole conversation about this already in >this thread that I didn't notice. However, reading through all of it, >I still don't understand sure why the presence of ACPI tables is >insufficient to enable ACPI.
Because ACPI on arm64 is still experimental, no matter how many people claim that it is production ready in their private setups.
Fair enough. Does this mean that passing "acpi=force" on the kernel command line is a requirement for ARM64 servers?
>In what situation would we want to ignore ACPI tables that are >present?
When DT tables are also present (and for the first platforms, that's highly recommended, though not easily enforceable at the kernel level).
My understanding is that the EFI stub creates a device tree (and it contains some important information), so I don't understand how we can ever have an ACPI-only platform on ARM64 servers.
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. -- 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/
