[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 05/62] acpi: Don't do traditional BIOS table scan for ARM64
On 2015/11/23 19:35, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 23.11.15 at 12:24, <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> With the addition of ARM64 that does not have a traditional BIOS to >>> scan, add a #ifdef option for x86 to do the traditional BIOS scanning >>> for tables. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> xen/drivers/acpi/osl.c | 2 ++ >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/xen/drivers/acpi/osl.c b/xen/drivers/acpi/osl.c >>> index ce15470..db74a90 100644 >>> --- a/xen/drivers/acpi/osl.c >>> +++ b/xen/drivers/acpi/osl.c >>> @@ -78,7 +78,9 @@ acpi_physical_address __init >>> acpi_os_get_root_pointer(void) >>> } else { >>> acpi_physical_address pa = 0; >>> >>> + #ifdef CONFIG_X86 >>> acpi_find_root_pointer(&pa); >>> + #endif >>> return pa; >>> } >> >> I think it might be best to error out earlier if acpi and !efi_enabled >> on arm and arm64. If we do that we'll never enter this "else". >> >> If acpi_find_root_pointer doesn't build on arm, we should move it to an >> x86 specific location, such as xen/arch/x86/efi. > > No, definitely not (or if anything, then xen/arch/x86/acpi/). Instead > the function itself should be stubbed out to do nothing on ARM. (And > of course also the #ifdef placement is rather odd). > How about adding a new CONFIG_ACPI_LEGACY_TABLES_LOOKUP like Linux kernel for x86? Thanks, -- Shannon _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |