| Message ID | 20170718150420.61600-5-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 06:04:19 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > Some platform might take care of legacy devices on theirs own. > Let's allow them to do that by exporting a weak function. > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> I'd rather do it at the time when acpi_reduced_hw_init() actually needs to be overridden by at least one platform. Thanks, Rafael
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 06:04:19 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> Some platform might take care of legacy devices on theirs own. >> Let's allow them to do that by exporting a weak function. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > I'd rather do it at the time when acpi_reduced_hw_init() actually needs to be > overridden by at least one platform. Do you mean as folded into some other patch or just as a preparatory patch in some future series?
On Saturday, July 22, 2017 04:53:52 AM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 06:04:19 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> Some platform might take care of legacy devices on theirs own. > >> Let's allow them to do that by exporting a weak function. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > > > I'd rather do it at the time when acpi_reduced_hw_init() actually needs to be > > overridden by at least one platform. > > Do you mean as folded into some other patch or just as a preparatory > patch in some future series? > > Any of the above would work for me. Thanks, Rafael
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > On Saturday, July 22, 2017 04:53:52 AM Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: >> > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 06:04:19 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> > I'd rather do it at the time when acpi_reduced_hw_init() actually needs to be >> > overridden by at least one platform. >> >> Do you mean as folded into some other patch or just as a preparatory >> patch in some future series? > Any of the above would work for me. Logically it should be a separate change as I can see (I have already locally prepared patches for that one platform). Thanks for review. P.S. Are you going to apply first 3 then from this series?
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: >> On Saturday, July 22, 2017 04:53:52 AM Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: >>> > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 06:04:19 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>> > I'd rather do it at the time when acpi_reduced_hw_init() actually needs to be >>> > overridden by at least one platform. >>> >>> Do you mean as folded into some other patch or just as a preparatory >>> patch in some future series? > >> Any of the above would work for me. > > Logically it should be a separate change as I can see (I have already > locally prepared patches for that one platform). > > Thanks for review. > > P.S. Are you going to apply first 3 then from this series? Yes, I am.
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 12:14:27 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Andy Shevchenko > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > >> On Saturday, July 22, 2017 04:53:52 AM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > >>> > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 06:04:19 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > >>> > I'd rather do it at the time when acpi_reduced_hw_init() actually needs to be > >>> > overridden by at least one platform. > >>> > >>> Do you mean as folded into some other patch or just as a preparatory > >>> patch in some future series? > > > >> Any of the above would work for me. > > > > Logically it should be a separate change as I can see (I have already > > locally prepared patches for that one platform). > > > > Thanks for review. > > > > P.S. Are you going to apply first 3 then from this series? > > Yes, I am. So applied now, thanks!
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c index 0186d3bae610..71c0feae60a4 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c @@ -1348,7 +1348,7 @@ static int __init dmi_ignore_irq0_timer_override(const struct dmi_system_id *d) * * We initialize the Hardware-reduced ACPI model here: */ -static void __init acpi_reduced_hw_init(void) +void __init __weak acpi_reduced_hw_init(void) { if (acpi_gbl_reduced_hardware) { /* diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h index 7443af1d16e7..5a19b2090db1 100644 --- a/include/linux/acpi.h +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h @@ -230,6 +230,8 @@ struct acpi_subtable_proc { void __iomem *__acpi_map_table(unsigned long phys, unsigned long size); void __acpi_unmap_table(void __iomem *map, unsigned long size); + +void acpi_reduced_hw_init(void); int early_acpi_boot_init(void); int acpi_boot_init (void); void acpi_boot_table_init (void); @@ -682,6 +684,7 @@ static inline struct device *acpi_get_first_physical_node(struct acpi_device *ad static inline void acpi_early_init(void) { } static inline void acpi_subsystem_init(void) { } +static inline void acpi_reduced_hw_init(void) { } static inline int early_acpi_boot_init(void) { return 0;
Some platform might take care of legacy devices on theirs own. Let's allow them to do that by exporting a weak function. Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> --- arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c | 2 +- include/linux/acpi.h | 3 +++ 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)