[PATCH v10 00/21] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
guohanjun at huawei.com
Wed Mar 18 21:09:33 PDT 2015
On 2015/3/19 3:05, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:39:26PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> This patch set already tested on multi platforms:
>> - AMD Seattle board;
>> - Cavium Thunder board;
>> - Huawei D02 board;
>> - Qualcomm ARM64 platform
>> This version 10 patch set address some minor comments and collect ACKs and
>> Reviewed-bys for v9:
>> - new Acks from Rafael, Olof, Grant, Lorenzo
>> - new way to handle typdef phys_cpuid_t which suggested by Rafael,
>> but no functional change
>> - Remove if(!phys) for early ioremappings
>> - Rework sleep function for ARM64
>> - Introduce linux/acpi_irq.h to hold acpi_irq_init()
>> - Disable ACPI if not HW_REDUCED_ACPI compliant
>> - Remove the doc of why ACPI on ARM
> So I've had a look at the current state of this series and I think there
> are a few immediate things left to do:
> (1) Resolve the acpi=force cmdline issue highlighted by Lorenzo and
Sure, it will be done after the confirmation with Ard.
> (2) I believe Sudeep and Lorenzo have concerns about patch 13 (SMP init),
> so I'm assuming there will be additional patches from them that are
Sorry, I assume that it is about the print information for PSCI absent for SMP init, right?
> (3) I have an open comment about moving the IRQ domain code into the
> core, which I'd like to see addressed.
I replied your email, please share your ideas for what I said.
> (4) We need an ack from Daniel on the arch-timer patch
OK, thanks for your ping to Daniel :)
> If you can get that in place, I'm not opposed to putting this into
> linux-next ahead of the firmware summit in San Jose next week. Note that
> this is not a commitment for 4.1, since I'm keen to see the outcomes of
> next week before setting anything in stone.
OK, I will stick to this mailing list and respond as soon as I can.
> Also, there's no need to repost patches if you're just adding Acks. I
> think I'm up to speed with those on my local branch and the Tested-by
> party is starting to look a little silly.
Should I send another version, and add some incremental cleanup/fix patches
on top of that?
More information about the linux-arm-kernel