Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Date | Tue, 29 Aug 2023 16:25:13 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ACPI: processor: Move MWAIT quirk out of acpi_processor.c |
| |
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 4:21 PM Wilczynski, Michal <michal.wilczynski@intel.com> wrote: > > > > On 8/29/2023 4:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 3:58 PM Wilczynski, Michal > > <michal.wilczynski@intel.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 8/29/2023 3:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 3:44 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 05:03:29PM +0300, Michal Wilczynski wrote: > >>>>> Commit 2a2a64714d9c ("ACPI: Disable MWAIT via DMI on broken Compal board") > >>>>> introduced a workaround for MWAIT for a specific x86 system. > >>>>> > >>>>> Move the code outside of acpi_processor.c to acpi/x86/ directory for > >>>>> consistency and rename the functions associated with it, so their names > >>>>> start with "acpi_proc_quirk_" to make the goal obvious. > >>>>> > >>>>> No intentional functional impact. > >>>>> > >>>> Except for: > >>>> > >>>> ia64-linux-ld: drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.o: in function `acpi_early_processor_control_setup': > >>>> acpi_processor.c:(.init.text+0x712): undefined reference to `acpi_proc_quirk_mwait_check' > >>>> ia64-linux-ld: drivers/acpi/processor_pdc.o: in function `acpi_early_processor_set_pdc': > >>>> processor_pdc.c:(.init.text+0x72): undefined reference to `acpi_proc_quirk_mwait_check' > >>>> > >>>> which breaks all ia64 builds. > >>>> > >>>> Time to retire that architecture yet ? No one but me seems to even > >>>> build test it. > >>> Including 0-day it seems. This had been in linux-next for several weeks. > >>> > >>> Michal, can you have a look at this please? > >> Hi, > >> I'll take a look and get back to you with a fix, > > Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the attached patch should be sufficient. > > Exactly, adding this empty stub will make sure there is no linker error, this function > is relevant only for x86 anyway. > > If ia64 support for 0-day was turned off then I think it was rather recently, cause I've > seen it working I think back in May. > > To be honest I'm not sure what is being done in such cases ? Will you send a fix to Linus > directly, or should I prepare a patch and sent in on the list ??
I'll add a changelog to the fix, post it and merge it directly, so you don't need to do anything (other than ACKing the fix if you will).
| |