On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Jeremy Linton [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi,


On 12/13/2017 11:26 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 04:23:24PM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote:

quoted

Now that we have a PPTT parser, in preparation for its use
on arm64, lets build it.

Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <redacted>
---
  arch/arm64/Kconfig    | 1 +
  drivers/acpi/Kconfig  | 3 +++
  drivers/acpi/Makefile | 1 +
  3 files changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index a93339f5178f..e62fd1e08c1f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig

@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ config ARM64
        select ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY if ACPI
        select ACPI_MCFG if ACPI
        select ACPI_SPCR_TABLE if ACPI
+       select ACPI_PPTT if ACPI
        select ARCH_CLOCKSOURCE_DATA
        select ARCH_HAS_DEBUG_VIRTUAL
        select ARCH_HAS_DEVMEM_IS_ALLOWED

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
index 46505396869e..df7aebf0af0e 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig

@@ -545,6 +545,9 @@ config ACPI_CONFIGFS
    if ARM64
  source "drivers/acpi/arm64/Kconfig"
+
+config ACPI_PPTT
+       bool

We need to make a choice here. Either PPTT is considered ARM64 only and
we move code and config to drivers/acpi/arm64/Kconfig or we leave it in
drivers/acpi/pptt.c and we add a Kconfig entry in drivers/acpi/Kconfig
(and we make pptt.c compile on !ARM64 - which is what it should be given
that there is nothing ARM64 specific in it).

No one else has expressed and opinion about this here..

So i'm not sure what to think.

OTOH a lot of people didn't like it when I had it in the arm64 directory,
which was my original opinion. It seems other people thought that at some
point in the future other ACPI platforms would want to use it so putting it
in the arm64 directory was a mistake.

In my view it may go directly into drivers/acpi/ for the time being.

That said, going forward it may be useful to add a special
subdirectory under drivers/acpi/ for these "table drivers" as we seem
to be acquiring them at alarming rate.

So, I'm leaning towards leaving it like it is, under the assumption that
when someone puts in the effort to verify it on another ACPI platform they
can move the config option up 6 lines. In the meantime I don't think it
should be enabled on platforms where it hasn't been tested or is basically
blocked (cpu_cacheinfo->cpu_map_populated) from executing or there isn't
currently any benefit.

Agreed.

Thanks,
Rafael