From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755936Ab2AQUwb (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:52:31 -0500 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]:56103 "EHLO acsinet15.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755469Ab2AQUw2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:52:28 -0500 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, joseph.cihula@intel.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, len.brown@intel.com, rjw@sisk.pl, mingo@redhat.com Subject: [PATCH] cleanups in ACPI - removing tboot_ calls for 3.4 (v1) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:50:06 -0500 Message-Id: <1326833408-23685-1-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.7.4 X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090209.4F15DF80.0030,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I am not really sure if these patches should go through the ACPI or x86 tree. I think they are more x86-ish related and earlier patches for tboot went through tip.. Thoughts? Theset two patches cleanup the ACPI code by removing the 'tboot_sleep' function call within the ACPI call and instead use a function call. The function call is set if Intel TXT is detected, otherwise we just skip over and continue on in hwsleep.c. Tested on AMD, Intel w/TXT and w/o TXT. Also compile tested on IA64 which has some reference to tboot but does not use it. The diff-stat: arch/x86/kernel/tboot.c | 9 ++++++--- drivers/acpi/acpica/hwsleep.c | 10 +++++++--- drivers/acpi/osl.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/acpi/acexcep.h | 1 + include/linux/acpi.h | 10 ++++++++++ include/linux/tboot.h | 1 - 6 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) The purpose of this cleanup is two-fold: 1). Cleanup the call a bit - that 'tboot_sleep' in ACPICA, which is suppose to be OS-agnostic code looks odd. 2). Piggy-back on the function call if running under Xen [https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/16/447]. Those patches are still going through review, but the cleanup patches can be submitted as standalone. Thanks!