| Message ID | 20230705115534.26004-1-julien@xen.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | xen/arm: Kconfig: ACPI should depend on UEFI | expand |
On 05.07.2023 13:55, Julien Grall wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig > @@ -63,11 +63,11 @@ source "arch/Kconfig" > > config ACPI > bool "ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Support (UNSUPPORTED)" if UNSUPPORTED > - depends on ARM_64 > + depends on ARM_64 && ARM_EFI Wouldn't it make sense to drop the ARM_64 dependency then? It's now redundant, and it seems quite likely that if EFI was ever support for 32-bit, ACPI could then be supported there as well. Jan
Hi Jan, On 05/07/2023 13:04, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 05.07.2023 13:55, Julien Grall wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig >> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig >> @@ -63,11 +63,11 @@ source "arch/Kconfig" >> >> config ACPI >> bool "ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Support (UNSUPPORTED)" if UNSUPPORTED >> - depends on ARM_64 >> + depends on ARM_64 && ARM_EFI > > Wouldn't it make sense to drop the ARM_64 dependency then? It's now > redundant, and it seems quite likely that if EFI was ever support > for 32-bit, ACPI could then be supported there as well. I think so. I am not planning to resend a new version for that. So I will do it on commit and mention it in the commit message. Cheers,
On 05/07/2023 13:30, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Jan, > > On 05/07/2023 13:04, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 05.07.2023 13:55, Julien Grall wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig >>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig >>> @@ -63,11 +63,11 @@ source "arch/Kconfig" >>> config ACPI >>> bool "ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Support >>> (UNSUPPORTED)" if UNSUPPORTED >>> - depends on ARM_64 >>> + depends on ARM_64 && ARM_EFI >> >> Wouldn't it make sense to drop the ARM_64 dependency then? It's now >> redundant, and it seems quite likely that if EFI was ever support >> for 32-bit, ACPI could then be supported there as well. > > I think so. I am not planning to resend a new version for that. So I > will do it on commit and mention it in the commit message. Actually no. It would be easier to add UEFI on Arm32 compare to adding ACPI. So it would be best to keep ARM_64 here at least for the time been. Cheers,
Hi Jan, > On 5 Jul 2023, at 14:04, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote: > > On 05.07.2023 13:55, Julien Grall wrote: >> --- a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig >> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig >> @@ -63,11 +63,11 @@ source "arch/Kconfig" >> >> config ACPI >> bool "ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Support (UNSUPPORTED)" if UNSUPPORTED >> - depends on ARM_64 >> + depends on ARM_64 && ARM_EFI > > Wouldn't it make sense to drop the ARM_64 dependency then? It's now > redundant, and it seems quite likely that if EFI was ever support > for 32-bit, ACPI could then be supported there as well. I think we need to keep it. If we add one day EFI support on arm32, we will probably not add ACPI support anyway. Cheers Bertrand > > Jan
Hi Julien, > On 5 Jul 2023, at 13:55, Julien Grall <julien@xen.org> wrote: > > From: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com> > > On Arm, it is not possible to use ACPI without UEFI. In fact disabling > UEFI but not ACPI will lead to a compilation error: > > ld: prelink.o: in function `acpi_os_get_root_pointer': > /builds/xen-project/people/andyhhp/xen/xen/drivers/acpi/osl.c:73: > undefined reference to `efi' > /builds/xen-project/people/andyhhp/xen/xen/drivers/acpi/osl.c:73:(.init.text+0x8ac0): > relocation truncated to fit: R_AARCH64_ADR_PREL_PG_HI21 against > undefined symbol `efi' > > So make the dependency clear in the Kconfig. > > This was spotted by the randconfig build in gitlab CI. > > Fixes: 12314be5749e ("xen/arm: make ARM_EFI selectable for Arm64") > Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com> Reviewed-by: Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@arm.com> Cheers Bertrand > --- > xen/arch/arm/Kconfig | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig > index c30f32457388..439cc94f3344 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig > @@ -63,11 +63,11 @@ source "arch/Kconfig" > > config ACPI > bool "ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Support (UNSUPPORTED)" if UNSUPPORTED > - depends on ARM_64 > + depends on ARM_64 && ARM_EFI > ---help--- > > Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) support for Xen is > - an alternative to device tree on ARM64. > + an alternative to device tree on ARM64. This requires UEFI. > > config ARM_EFI > bool "UEFI boot service support" > -- > 2.40.1 >
> On 5 Jul 2023, at 14:50, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Jan, > >> On 5 Jul 2023, at 14:04, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote: >> >> On 05.07.2023 13:55, Julien Grall wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig >>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig >>> @@ -63,11 +63,11 @@ source "arch/Kconfig" >>> >>> config ACPI >>> bool "ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Support (UNSUPPORTED)" if UNSUPPORTED >>> - depends on ARM_64 >>> + depends on ARM_64 && ARM_EFI >> >> Wouldn't it make sense to drop the ARM_64 dependency then? It's now >> redundant, and it seems quite likely that if EFI was ever support >> for 32-bit, ACPI could then be supported there as well. > > I think we need to keep it. > If we add one day EFI support on arm32, we will probably not add ACPI support anyway. Sorry Julien I answered Jan before seeing your mail but I said the same :-) Cheers Bertrand > > Cheers > Bertrand > >> >> Jan
Hi, On 05/07/2023 13:51, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >> On 5 Jul 2023, at 13:55, Julien Grall <julien@xen.org> wrote: >> >> From: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com> >> >> On Arm, it is not possible to use ACPI without UEFI. In fact disabling >> UEFI but not ACPI will lead to a compilation error: >> >> ld: prelink.o: in function `acpi_os_get_root_pointer': >> /builds/xen-project/people/andyhhp/xen/xen/drivers/acpi/osl.c:73: >> undefined reference to `efi' >> /builds/xen-project/people/andyhhp/xen/xen/drivers/acpi/osl.c:73:(.init.text+0x8ac0): >> relocation truncated to fit: R_AARCH64_ADR_PREL_PG_HI21 against >> undefined symbol `efi' >> >> So make the dependency clear in the Kconfig. >> >> This was spotted by the randconfig build in gitlab CI. >> >> Fixes: 12314be5749e ("xen/arm: make ARM_EFI selectable for Arm64") >> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com> > > Reviewed-by: Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@arm.com> Thanks. I have committed the patch. Cheers,
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig index c30f32457388..439cc94f3344 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig +++ b/xen/arch/arm/Kconfig @@ -63,11 +63,11 @@ source "arch/Kconfig" config ACPI bool "ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Support (UNSUPPORTED)" if UNSUPPORTED - depends on ARM_64 + depends on ARM_64 && ARM_EFI ---help--- Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) support for Xen is - an alternative to device tree on ARM64. + an alternative to device tree on ARM64. This requires UEFI. config ARM_EFI bool "UEFI boot service support"