lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI: let BIOS fall back to legacy handling if PRM disabled
From
Date
On 7/2/21 10:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 4:02 PM Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/2/21 7:37 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 9:03 AM Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Based on _OSC PRM bit, BIOS can choose switch from legacy handling
>>>> to using PRM. So if CONFIG_ACPI_PRMT is disabled, this bit should
>>>> not be set to let BIOS fall back to the legacy handling (such as SMI).
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/acpi/bus.c | 2 ++
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/bus.c b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
>>>> index 60fb6a84..30a3d4a 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
>>>> @@ -303,7 +303,9 @@ static void acpi_bus_osc_negotiate_platform_control(void)
>>>>
>>>> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_HOTPLUG_OST_SUPPORT;
>>>> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_PCLPI_SUPPORT;
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_PRMT
>>>> capbuf[OSC_SUPPORT_DWORD] |= OSC_SB_PRM_SUPPORT;
>>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> What about using if (IS_ENABLED()) instead of #ifdef?
>>
>> aha, sorry, using if (IS_ENABLED()) is better, will come up with a new version soon.
>
> No need (see my other reply).
>
> Thanks!
>

Okay, thanks Rafael!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-02 16:06    [W:0.048 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site