Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191009130433.29134-1-sameo@linux.intel.com> <20191009130433.29134-2-sameo@linux.intel.com>
 <CAJZ5v0ioC6XnC+sFpRJmm40T+YCnqoaHhJ+_Pmk7rvvC8UPT9w@mail.gmail.com> <20191011121447.GA4256@caravaggio>
In-Reply-To: <20191011121447.GA4256@caravaggio>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:55:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gv_ycJc_XgxyA4LZS50xmh9PU_iLDRKyDL738C0Zaj_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] acpi: Fail GED probe when not on hardware-reduced
To:     Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:14 PM Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:38:49PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 3:04 PM Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Generic Event Device (GED) is a hardware-reduced platform device.
> >
> > No, it is not AFAICS.
> It's a little confusing, I was not sure what's the common understanding
> and tried to be safe by not having non HW-reduced machines getting a
> new device that they've never seen so far.

I really don't expect firmware to expose GED for such machines (why
would it?), but if it does so, then why not to handle it?

> > The spec doesn't say that GED cannot be used on platforms that aren't
> > HW-reduced
> I agree.
>
> >  and if evged.c is going to be built in unconditionally, the
> > kernel will be able to handle GED regardless.
> Ok, perfect then. Does that mean you're ok with the 2nd patch but are
> going to drop this one?

Sure, I will apply the second patch only.

Thanks!