Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933041AbdHYOJZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:09:25 -0400 Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:24772 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755202AbdHYOJX (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:09:23 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,425,1498492800"; d="scan'208";a="24734914" Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 12/13] ACPI / init: Invoke early ACPI initialization earlier To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" References: <1500011554-9784-1-git-send-email-douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <4971374.QgHTRTZW1k@aspire.rjw.lan> <5cf1fea0-3f7f-8eda-bc89-4ad42e8d4f25@cn.fujitsu.com> <2641234.UytgA7eGhA@aspire.rjw.lan> CC: , , "Zheng, Lv" , , , , , , , , , , Julian Wollrath , Borislav Petkov From: Dou Liyang Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 22:09:16 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2641234.UytgA7eGhA@aspire.rjw.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.226.106] X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: 6EE894724006.A91D2 X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1895 Lines: 69 Hi Rafael, At 08/25/2017 08:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, August 25, 2017 4:06:11 AM CEST Dou Liyang wrote: [...] >>>> >>>> BTW, >>>> 1) I found your commit b064a8fa77df (" ACPI / init: Switch over >>>> platform to the ACPI mode later") split the ACPI early initialization >>>> code into acpi_early_init() and acpi_subsystem_init(). Actually enabling >>>> the ACPI subsystem is in acpi_subsystem_init(). >>>> >>>> 2) As we discussed earlier, invoking acpi_put_table() is not good for >>>> this situation. >>>> >>>> So I do this patch, Is that goot to you? Any comments will be welcome. >>>> >>>> If it is OK, As the patches need to be re-based, and I also found >>>> several spelling mistake, I will send a new version next week. >>> >>> OK, but does it depend on anything? Or does anything depend on it? >>> >> >> It depends on nothing and can be considered independent. > > OK > > Please send it as an independent patch, then. > >> [11/13] patch in this series depends on it. [11/13] patch caused an >> ACPI error, we used this patch to fix it. > > So the ordering of patches in the series should be different, then. > > It should be ordered so as to avoid triggering the warning at all, > so this patch should go before the [11/13]. Yes, Indeed. > >>> It is [12/13] in a series, so it looks like it doesn't depend on the >>> previous patches in it, but the next one may depend on it? Which is the >>> case? >>> >> >> The second case(the next one may depend on it) is what I want. >> >> But, seems I made a mistake about the order of the patches. I should >> put it before [11/13] to avoid the ACPI error. > > Right. > >> I will adjust the order of the patches in the next version, and post >> the whole series to you. > > Please just CC it to linux-acpi. Got it. Will just CC it to linux-acpi, and CC the whole series to you. Thanks, dou. > > Thanks, > Rafael > > > >