Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 12:24:44 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>
Cc: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei.yes@gmail.com>,
        Tang Chen <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>, konrad.wilk@oracle.com,
        robert.moore@intel.com, lv.zheng@intel.com, rjw@sisk.pl,
        lenb@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, hpa@zytor.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, trenn@suse.de, yinghai@kernel.org,
        jiang.liu@huawei.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com,
        isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, minchan@kernel.org, mina86@mina86.com,
        gong.chen@linux.intel.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@profitbricks.com,
        lwoodman@redhat.com, riel@redhat.com, jweiner@redhat.com,
        prarit@redhat.com, zhangyanfei@cn.fujitsu.com, yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] x86, acpi: Move acpi_initrd_override() earlier.
Message-ID: <20130823162444.GL3277@htj.dyndns.org>
References: <20130822033234.GA2413@htj.dyndns.org>
 <1377186729.10300.643.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
 <20130822183130.GA3490@mtj.dyndns.org>
 <1377202292.10300.693.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
 <20130822202158.GD3490@mtj.dyndns.org>
 <1377205598.10300.715.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
 <20130822212111.GF3490@mtj.dyndns.org>
 <1377209861.10300.756.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
 <20130823130440.GC10322@mtj.dyndns.org>
 <1377274448.10300.777.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1377274448.10300.777.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1084
Lines: 25

Hello,

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 10:14:08AM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> I still think acpi table info should be available earlier, but I do not
> think I can convince you on this.  This can be religious debate.

I'm curious.  If there aren't substantial enough benefits, why would
you still want to pull it earlier when it brings in things like initrd
override and crafting the code carefully so that it's safe to execute
it from different address modes and so on?  Please note that x86 is
not ia64.  The early environment is completely different not only
technically but also in its diversity and suckiness.  It wasn't too
long ago that vendors were screwing up ACPI left and right.  It has
been getting better but there's a reason why, for example, we still
consider e820 to be the authoritative information over ACPI.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/