| Message ID | 1460706823-16566-2-git-send-email-broonie@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Delegated to: | Rafael Wysocki |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > When ACPI was originally merged for arm64 it had only been tested on > emulators and not on real physical platforms and no platforms were > relying on it. This meant that there were concerns that there might be > serious issues attempting to use it on practical systems so it had a > dependency on EXPERT added to warn people that it was in an early stage > of development with very little practical testing. Since then things > have moved on a bit. We have seen people testing on real hardware and > now have people starting to produce some platforms (the most prominent > being the 96boards Cello) which only have ACPI support and which build > and run to some useful extent with mainline. > > This is not to say that ACPI support or support for these systems is > completely done, there are still areas being worked on such as PCI, but > at this point it seems that we can be reasonably sure that ACPI will be > viable for use on ARM64 and that the already merged support works for > the cases it handles. For the AMD Seattle based platforms support > outside of PCI has been fairly complete in mainline a few releases now. > > This is also not to say that we don't have vendors working with ACPI who > are trying do things that we would not consider optimal but it does not > appear that the EXPERT dependency is having a substantial impact on > these vendors. > > Given all this it seems that at this point the EXPERT dependency mainly > creates inconvenience for users with systems that are doing the right > thing and gets in the way of including the ACPI code in the testing that > people are doing on mainline. Removing it should help our ongoing > testing cover those platforms with only ACPI support and help ensure > that when ACPI code is merged any problems it causes for other users are > more easily discovered. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> > Acked-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org> > Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> > Reviewed-by: Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com> > Acked-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Acked-by: Roy Franz <roy.franz@hpe.com> > --- > drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > index 2fcf87a6d270..fa0d319283e3 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ > menuconfig ACPI > bool "ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Support" > depends on !IA64_HP_SIM > - depends on IA64 || X86 || (ARM64 && EXPERT) > + depends on IA64 || X86 || ARM64 > depends on PCI > select PNP > default y if (IA64 || X86) > -- > 2.8.0.rc3 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > When ACPI was originally merged for arm64 it had only been tested on > emulators and not on real physical platforms and no platforms were > relying on it. This meant that there were concerns that there might be > serious issues attempting to use it on practical systems so it had a > dependency on EXPERT added to warn people that it was in an early stage > of development with very little practical testing. Since then things > have moved on a bit. We have seen people testing on real hardware and > now have people starting to produce some platforms (the most prominent > being the 96boards Cello) which only have ACPI support and which build > and run to some useful extent with mainline. > > This is not to say that ACPI support or support for these systems is > completely done, there are still areas being worked on such as PCI, but > at this point it seems that we can be reasonably sure that ACPI will be > viable for use on ARM64 and that the already merged support works for > the cases it handles. For the AMD Seattle based platforms support > outside of PCI has been fairly complete in mainline a few releases now. > > This is also not to say that we don't have vendors working with ACPI who > are trying do things that we would not consider optimal but it does not > appear that the EXPERT dependency is having a substantial impact on > these vendors. > > Given all this it seems that at this point the EXPERT dependency mainly > creates inconvenience for users with systems that are doing the right > thing and gets in the way of including the ACPI code in the testing that > people are doing on mainline. Removing it should help our ongoing > testing cover those platforms with only ACPI support and help ensure > that when ACPI code is merged any problems it causes for other users are > more easily discovered. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> > Acked-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org> > Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> > Reviewed-by: Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com> > Acked-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Acked-by: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > > Given all this it seems that at this point the EXPERT dependency mainly > creates inconvenience for users with systems that are doing the right > thing and gets in the way of including the ACPI code in the testing that > people are doing on mainline. Removing it should help our ongoing > testing cover those platforms with only ACPI support and help ensure > that when ACPI code is merged any problems it causes for other users are > more easily discovered. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> > Acked-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org> > Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> > Reviewed-by: Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com> > Acked-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Acked-by: Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig index 2fcf87a6d270..fa0d319283e3 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ menuconfig ACPI bool "ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Support" depends on !IA64_HP_SIM - depends on IA64 || X86 || (ARM64 && EXPERT) + depends on IA64 || X86 || ARM64 depends on PCI select PNP default y if (IA64 || X86)