Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:46:46 +0800 | From | Hanjun Guo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 00/21] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 |
| |
On 2015年03月24日 02:32, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Sat, 21 Mar 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> +CC Parth Dixit, Stefano Stabellini. >> >> On 2015年03月21日 02:54, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:09:33AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>> On 2015/3/19 3:05, Will Deacon wrote: >>>>> If you can get that in place, I'm not opposed to putting this into >>>>> linux-next ahead of the firmware summit in San Jose next week. Note that >>>>> this is not a commitment for 4.1, since I'm keen to see the outcomes of >>>>> next week before setting anything in stone. >>>> >>>> OK, I will stick to this mailing list and respond as soon as I can. >>> >>> This doesn't even build for me: >>> >>> >>> $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-none-linux-gnu- allmodconfig >>> $ make ARCH=arm64 CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-none-linux-gnu- Image >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> In file included from drivers/xen/acpi.c:33:0: >> >> Sorry, I didn't build ACPI with XEN enabled on ARM64. >> >>> include/xen/acpi.h: In function ‘xen_acpi_sleep_register’: >>> include/xen/acpi.h:102:3: error: ‘acpi_suspend_lowlevel’ undeclared (first >>> use in this function) >>> acpi_suspend_lowlevel = xen_acpi_suspend_lowlevel; >> >> acpi_suspend_lowlevel is defined only for X86 and IA64 for now. >> >>> ^ >>> include/xen/acpi.h:102:3: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only >>> once for each function it appears in >>> drivers/xen/acpi.c: In function ‘xen_acpi_notify_hypervisor_state’: >>> drivers/xen/acpi.c:61:2: error: implicit declaration of function >>> ‘HYPERVISOR_dom0_op’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >>> HYPERVISOR_dom0_op(&op); >> >> And this is only for x86: >> ./arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h:HYPERVISOR_dom0_op(struct >> xen_platform_op *platform_op) >> >>> ^ >>> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors >>> make[2]: *** [drivers/xen/acpi.o] Error 1 >>> make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... >>> make[1]: *** [drivers/xen] Error 2 >>> make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... >>> make: *** [drivers] Error 2 >>> >>> >>> Am I missing some other patches? >> >> No, you miss nothing. Parth Dixit is still working on XEN ACPI for >> ARM64, before it's in full function, how about introduce a Kconfig >> CONFIG_XEN_ACPI and let it depends on x86? when XEN ACPI for ARM64 >> comes, we can enable ARM64 for CONFIG_XEN_ACPI and fix the problems >> above. >> >> Stefano, Parth, what do you think? > > To be precise, Parth is working on ACPI enablement for the Xen > hypervisor at the moment (on the Xen tree), I don't think he has any > patches for Linux (Dom0 is the key use case). The two works could be > carried on in parallel, even though you would obviously need Parth's Xen > patches to test the Linux side.
Sure, I saw a workaround patch for the Linux side, if Parth need any help for the further development, I will be there.
> > That said, I am OK with disabling ACPI for Xen on ARM and ARM64 for now > -- I wouldn't want to cause any significant delays to your patch series.
Thanks!
Hanjun
| |