Re: [PATCH v5 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64

[Catalin Marinas]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 09:39:24AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2014å12æ25æ 01:18, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > In addition to the above and _DSD requirements/banning, I would also add
> > some clear statements around:
> >
> > _OSC: only global/published capabilities are allowed. For
> > device-specific _OSC we need a process or maybe we can ban them entirely
> > and rely on _DSD once we clarify the process.
> >
> > _OSI: firmware must not check for certain _OSI strings. Here I'm not
> > sure what we would have to do for ARM Linux. Reporting "Windows" does
> > not make any sense but not reporting anything can, as Matthew Garrett
> > pointed out, can be interpreted by firmware as "Linux". In addition to
> > any statements in this document, I suggest you patch
> > drivers/acpi/acpica/utosi.c accordingly, maybe report "Linux" for ARM
> > and print a kernel warning so that we notice earlier.
> >
> > ACPI_OS_NAME: this is globally defined as "Microsoft Windows NT". It
> > doesn't make much sense in the ARM context. Could we change it to
> > "Linux" when CONFIG_ARM64?
> 
> We will work on this both on ASWG and linux ACPI driver side, as Dong
> and Charles pointed out, _OSI things can be solved in ACPI spec, when
> that is done, we can modify the kernel driver to fix the problems above.

Which driver?

What about ACPI_OS_NAME? Would you suggest it is fine to report
"Microsoft Windows NT" on an ARM system? That _OS_ not _OSI.

-- 
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/