| Message ID | 20191115092424.17356-1-ruansy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | RFC, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [RFC] x86/acpi: Drop duplicate BOOT table initialization | expand |
Ping?
On Friday, November 15, 2019 10:24:24 AM CET Shiyang Ruan wrote: > From: Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > > ACPI BOOT table is initialized in both acpi_boot_table_init & > acpi_boot_init of setup_arch, but its usage is quite late at the end of > start_kernel. It should be safe to drop one of them. Since it is less > related with table init, drop it from there. Well, "It should be safe to drop one of them" is kind of a weak justification. I need to be convinced that one of them is redundant. At this point I am not. > Signed-off-by: Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > Cc: <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Shiyang Ruan <ruansy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > It existed since git repo is built, so it might has its reason? The > patch is not tested since I don't have BOOT table in my firmware. > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c > index 04205ce127a1..ca1c15bb0b48 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c > @@ -1558,8 +1558,6 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void) > return; > } > > - acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_BOOT, acpi_parse_sbf); > - > /* > * blacklist may disable ACPI entirely > */ >
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c index 04205ce127a1..ca1c15bb0b48 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c @@ -1558,8 +1558,6 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void) return; } - acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_BOOT, acpi_parse_sbf); - /* * blacklist may disable ACPI entirely */