Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Aug 2023 16:38:33 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ACPI: processor: Move MWAIT quirk out of acpi_processor.c | From | "Wilczynski, Michal" <> |
| |
On 8/29/2023 4:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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).
OK, thanks !
For the fix: Acked-by: Michal Wilczynski <michal.wilczynski@intel.com>
| |