On 30 January 2015 at 14:48, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, rather than a "I-created-an-empty-dtb" property, I would
>> actually say something like "dtb-contains-no-hardware-description".
>
>
> Why do we need a property for this? Wouldn't the absence of a hardware
>
Catalin Marinas wrote:
Anyway, rather than a "I-created-an-empty-dtb" property, I would
actually say something like "dtb-contains-no-hardware-description".
Why do we need a property for this? Wouldn't the absence of a hardware
description be the best way to see if the dtb contains no
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 06:20:06PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 29 January 2015 at 15:19, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:18:44PM +, Timur Tabi wrote:
> >> On 01/28/2015 12:14 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> >> >So it looks like there's a whole conversation about
Catalin Marinas wrote:
Anyway, rather than a I-created-an-empty-dtb property, I would
actually say something like dtb-contains-no-hardware-description.
Why do we need a property for this? Wouldn't the absence of a hardware
description be the best way to see if the dtb contains no hardware
On 30 January 2015 at 14:48, Timur Tabi ti...@codeaurora.org wrote:
Catalin Marinas wrote:
Anyway, rather than a I-created-an-empty-dtb property, I would
actually say something like dtb-contains-no-hardware-description.
Why do we need a property for this? Wouldn't the absence of a hardware
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 06:20:06PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 29 January 2015 at 15:19, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:18:44PM +, Timur Tabi wrote:
On 01/28/2015 12:14 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
So it looks like there's a whole
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:16:22PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 01/29/2015 06:11 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> > Sorry Jon but statements like this make me wonder whether we should
> > simply let the whole ARM ACPI be an out of tree distro business. We
> > spend a long time discussing
On 01/29/2015 06:11 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Sorry Jon but statements like this make me wonder whether we should
> simply let the whole ARM ACPI be an out of tree distro business. We
> spend a long time discussing OS-agnostic firmware implementation,
> planning mini-summits, just to get
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 06:44:36PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 01/29/2015 01:34 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> > On 01/29/2015 12:28 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> The UEFI stub in the kernel uses the DTB file format (FDT) to pass
> >> information about the UEFI memory map and system table to the
On 01/29/2015 01:34 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On 01/29/2015 12:28 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> The UEFI stub in the kernel uses the DTB file format (FDT) to pass
>> information about the UEFI memory map and system table to the kernel.
>> It does so even if there is no device tree that describes the
On 01/29/2015 12:28 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
The UEFI stub in the kernel uses the DTB file format (FDT) to pass
information about the UEFI memory map and system table to the kernel.
It does so even if there is no device tree that describes the
platform. In this case, the file only contains a
On 29 January 2015 at 18:21, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On 01/29/2015 12:20 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>
>> If we are going with this solution, we should also mandate that an
>> ACPI enabled firmware should not supply a non-DT DTB
>
>
> What is a non-DT DTB? I thought the "DT" in "DTB" stood for device
On 01/29/2015 12:20 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
If we are going with this solution, we should also mandate that an
ACPI enabled firmware should not supply a non-DT DTB
What is a non-DT DTB? I thought the "DT" in "DTB" stood for device tree.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm
On 29 January 2015 at 15:19, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:18:44PM +, Timur Tabi wrote:
>> 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
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:18:44PM +, Timur Tabi wrote:
> 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
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:18:44PM +, Timur Tabi wrote:
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
On 29 January 2015 at 15:19, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:18:44PM +, Timur Tabi wrote:
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.
On 29 January 2015 at 18:21, Timur Tabi ti...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 01/29/2015 12:20 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
If we are going with this solution, we should also mandate that an
ACPI enabled firmware should not supply a non-DT DTB
What is a non-DT DTB? I thought the DT in DTB stood for
On 01/29/2015 12:20 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
If we are going with this solution, we should also mandate that an
ACPI enabled firmware should not supply a non-DT DTB
What is a non-DT DTB? I thought the DT in DTB stood for device tree.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm
On 01/29/2015 12:28 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
The UEFI stub in the kernel uses the DTB file format (FDT) to pass
information about the UEFI memory map and system table to the kernel.
It does so even if there is no device tree that describes the
platform. In this case, the file only contains a
On 01/29/2015 01:34 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
On 01/29/2015 12:28 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
The UEFI stub in the kernel uses the DTB file format (FDT) to pass
information about the UEFI memory map and system table to the kernel.
It does so even if there is no device tree that describes the
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 06:44:36PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/29/2015 01:34 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
On 01/29/2015 12:28 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
The UEFI stub in the kernel uses the DTB file format (FDT) to pass
information about the UEFI memory map and system table to the kernel.
It
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:16:22PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/29/2015 06:11 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Sorry Jon but statements like this make me wonder whether we should
simply let the whole ARM ACPI be an out of tree distro business. We
spend a long time discussing OS-agnostic
On 01/29/2015 06:11 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Sorry Jon but statements like this make me wonder whether we should
simply let the whole ARM ACPI be an out of tree distro business. We
spend a long time discussing OS-agnostic firmware implementation,
planning mini-summits, just to get certain
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> From: Al Stone
>
> Introduce one early parameters "off" and "force" for "acpi", acpi=off
> will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
> enable ACPI on ARM64.
>
> Disable ACPI before early parameters parsed, and enable
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 05:58:54PM +, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > From: Al Stone
> >
> > Introduce one early parameters "off" and "force" for "acpi", acpi=off
> > will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
> > enable ACPI
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:08:24PM +, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> > What is the reason to assume that DT is preferred over ACPI? I would
> > have thought that if ACPI is present, then it means we're on an ARM64
> > server platform, and therefore
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
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> What is the reason to assume that DT is preferred over ACPI? I would
> have thought that if ACPI is present, then it means we're on an ARM64
> server platform, and therefore it should be used. It seems silly to
> require acpi=force on every
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 Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Timur Tabi ti...@codeaurora.org wrote:
What is the reason to assume that DT is preferred over ACPI? I would
have thought that if ACPI is present, then it means we're on an ARM64
server platform, and therefore it should be used. It seems silly to
require
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:08:24PM +, Timur Tabi wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Timur Tabi ti...@codeaurora.org wrote:
What is the reason to assume that DT is preferred over ACPI? I would
have thought that if ACPI is present, then it means we're on an ARM64
server platform,
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 05:58:54PM +, Timur Tabi wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Hanjun Guo hanjun@linaro.org wrote:
From: Al Stone al.st...@linaro.org
Introduce one early parameters off and force for acpi, acpi=off
will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Hanjun Guo hanjun@linaro.org wrote:
From: Al Stone al.st...@linaro.org
Introduce one early parameters off and force for acpi, acpi=off
will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
enable ACPI on ARM64.
Disable ACPI before early
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:10:00PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 07:20:06PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > > How about the patch (just RFC, maybe it is horrible :) )
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:10:00PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 07:20:06PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote:
How about the patch (just RFC, maybe it is horrible :) ) below:
On 21 January 2015 at 21:46, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:05:33PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On 01/21/2015 10:42 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:29:52PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
>> >> On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> >>> I have
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:05:33PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 01/21/2015 10:42 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:29:52PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> >> On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >>> I have some questions for the ACPI and EFI folk:
> >>>
> >>> 1.
On 01/21/2015 10:42 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:29:52PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> I have some questions for the ACPI and EFI folk:
>>>
>>> 1. When booting with ACPI, are the EFI run-time services required for
>>>
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 07:20:06PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > How about the patch (just RFC, maybe it is horrible :) ) below:
> > >
> > > When system supporting both DT and ACPI but firmware
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:42:43PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:29:52PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > I have some questions for the ACPI and EFI folk:
> > >
> > > 1. When booting with ACPI, are the EFI run-time
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:29:52PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > I have some questions for the ACPI and EFI folk:
> >
> > 1. When booting with ACPI, are the EFI run-time services required for
> >anything? If yes, Xen may have a bigger problem
>
On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> I have some questions for the ACPI and EFI folk:
>
> 1. When booting with ACPI, are the EFI run-time services required for
>anything? If yes, Xen may have a bigger problem
Yes. At least for some things. For example, installing an Operating
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 07:20:06PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > How about the patch (just RFC, maybe it is horrible :) ) below:
> >
> > When system supporting both DT and ACPI but firmware providing
> > no dtb, we can use this
On 21 January 2015 at 00:50, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
>> > > > On
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:29:52PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
I have some questions for the ACPI and EFI folk:
1. When booting with ACPI, are the EFI run-time services required for
anything? If yes, Xen may have a bigger problem
Yes. At
On 01/21/2015 10:42 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:29:52PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
I have some questions for the ACPI and EFI folk:
1. When booting with ACPI, are the EFI run-time services required for
anything? If
On 21 January 2015 at 21:46, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:05:33PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/21/2015 10:42 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:29:52PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:05:33PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/21/2015 10:42 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:29:52PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
I have some questions for the ACPI and EFI folk:
1. When booting with
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 07:20:06PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote:
How about the patch (just RFC, maybe it is horrible :) ) below:
When system supporting both DT and ACPI but firmware providing
no
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:42:43PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:29:52PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
I have some questions for the ACPI and EFI folk:
1. When booting with ACPI, are the EFI run-time services
On 21 January 2015 at 00:50, Stefano Stabellini
stefano.stabell...@eu.citrix.com wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 07:20:06PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote:
How about the patch (just RFC, maybe it is horrible :) ) below:
When system supporting both DT and ACPI but firmware providing
no dtb, we can use this linux,uefi-stub-generated-dtb
On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
I have some questions for the ACPI and EFI folk:
1. When booting with ACPI, are the EFI run-time services required for
anything? If yes, Xen may have a bigger problem
Yes. At least for some things. For example, installing an Operating
System
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> > > > On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 19 Jan
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:10:32AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > index 54e39e3..8268c7b 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > @@ -371,6 +371,31 @@ static void __init
On 2015年01月20日 19:10, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 09:29:14AM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/19/2015 10:13
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 09:29:14AM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> >>> On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 09:29:14AM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> >>> On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On
On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45 +
, Catalin Marinas
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19,
On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45 +
, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 09:29:14AM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:10:32AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
index 54e39e3..8268c7b 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
@@ -371,6 +371,31 @@ static void __init
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 09:29:14AM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan
On 2015年01月20日 19:10, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 09:29:14AM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/19/2015 10:13
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45 +
> > > , Catalin Marinas
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45 +
> > , Catalin Marinas
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin
On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45 +
> , Catalin Marinas
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45 +
, Catalin Marinas
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > >> From: Al Stone
> > >>
> > >>
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 02:00:24PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 19 January 2015 at 13:51, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM
On 19 January 2015 at 13:51, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> >> From: Al Stone
>> >>
>> >> Introduce one early
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> From: Al Stone
> >>
> >> Introduce one early parameters "off" and "force" for "acpi", acpi=off
> >> will be
On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> From: Al Stone
>>
>> Introduce one early parameters "off" and "force" for "acpi", acpi=off
>> will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
>> enable ACPI on
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> From: Al Stone
>
> Introduce one early parameters "off" and "force" for "acpi", acpi=off
> will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
> enable ACPI on ARM64.
>
> Disable ACPI before early parameters parsed,
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
From: Al Stone al.st...@linaro.org
Introduce one early parameters off and force for acpi,
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 02:00:24PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 13:51, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com
wrote:
On Wed,
On 19 January 2015 at 13:51, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
From: Al Stone
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45 +
, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
From: Al Stone al.st...@linaro.org
Introduce one early parameters off and force for acpi, acpi=off
will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
enable ACPI on ARM64.
Disable ACPI before early parameters
On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
From: Al Stone al.st...@linaro.org
Introduce one early parameters off and force for acpi, acpi=off
will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45 +
, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 11:42,
On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45 +
, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45 +
, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at
On 01/14/2015 09:04 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
From: Al Stone
Introduce one early parameters "off" and "force" for "acpi", acpi=off
will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
enable ACPI on ARM64.
Disable ACPI before early parameters parsed, and enable it to pass
On 01/14/2015 09:04 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
From: Al Stone al.st...@linaro.org
Introduce one early parameters off and force for acpi, acpi=off
will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
enable ACPI on ARM64.
Disable ACPI before early parameters parsed, and enable it to
From: Al Stone
Introduce one early parameters "off" and "force" for "acpi", acpi=off
will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
enable ACPI on ARM64.
Disable ACPI before early parameters parsed, and enable it to pass
"acpi=force" if people want use ACPI on ARM64. This
From: Al Stone al.st...@linaro.org
Introduce one early parameters off and force for acpi, acpi=off
will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
enable ACPI on ARM64.
Disable ACPI before early parameters parsed, and enable it to pass
acpi=force if people want use ACPI on
88 matches
Mail list logo
