On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 09:50:29AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 6/2/23 13:56, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 12:18:06PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > > On 6/2/23 11:54, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 10:22:15AM +0530, Sunil V L wrote: > > > > > + object_class_property_add(oc, "acpi", "OnOffAuto", > > > > > + virt_get_acpi, virt_set_acpi, > > > > > + NULL, NULL); > > > > > + object_class_property_set_description(oc, "acpi", > > > > > + "Enable ACPI"); > > > > > > > > The way this works on other architectures (x86_64, aarch64) is that > > > > you get ACPI by default and can use -no-acpi to disable it if > > > > desired. Can we have the same on RISC-V, for consistency? > > > > > > -no-acpi rather seems a x86-specific hack for the ISA PC machine, and > > > has a high maintenance cost / burden. > > > > Under the hood it is actually a OnOffAuto machine property and -no-acpi > > is just a shortcut to set that. > > > > > Actually, what is the value added by '-no-acpi'? > > > > On arm(64) the linux kernel can use either device trees or ACPI to find > > the hardware. Historical reasons mostly, when the platform started > > there was no ACPI support. Also the edk2 firmware uses Device Trees > > for hardware discovery, likewise for historical reasons. > > > > When ACPI is available for a platform right from the start I see little > > reason to offer an option to turn it off though ... > > Yeah I concur. There is no point in disabling ACPI on the RISCV virt > machine IMO.
Thank you all for the inputs. I am fine to keep it enabled by default. Do you mean we don't need the switch at all even for some testing/debugging purpose? Thanks, Sunil