Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751380AbbD3Nu1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:50:27 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:35863 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750839AbbD3NuX (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:50:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:50:18 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Hanjun Guo Cc: Catalin Marinas , "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" , "al.stone@linaro.org" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "leo.duran@amd.com" , "msalter@redhat.com" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Charles Garcia-Tobin , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "lenb@kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm/arm64: ACPI: Introduce CONFIG_ACPI_MUST_HAVE_CCA Message-ID: <20150430135018.GH32373@arm.com> References: <1430315049-4663-1-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> <1430315049-4663-2-git-send-email-Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> <20150429140445.GA18867@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <5540EB27.8060507@amd.com> <20150429144232.GC18867@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <55423261.4050008@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <55423261.4050008@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1294 Lines: 31 On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:47:13PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2015年04月29日 22:42, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 09:31:03AM -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: > >> On 04/29/2015 09:04 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:44:08AM -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: > >>> Any plans for ACPI on 32-bit ARM? > >> > >> Not that I am aware, but I could be totally wrong. The reason I am adding > >> this here for 32-bit ARM is because the ACPI spec mentioned this. > >> > >> If you think this is not necessary until we introduce ACPI for ARM32, it can > >> be removed. > > > > I think it should be removed (as long as ACPI cannot be selected on > > arm32). > > I agree. > > Now there is no plan for ARM32 ACPI as I know, ACPI for ARM targets > for ARM64 based enterprise system at now. While we're at it, do we *really* need to support CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS_POWER on arm64? It's a deprecated /proc/acpi interface and it would be nice to avoid introducing deprecated behaviour if we can avoid it. Will -- 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/