Bug#900581: linux: Enable Buster kernel features for newer ARM64 servers.
- To: Ian Campbell <ijc@debian.org>, 900581@bugs.debian.org
- Cc: Geoff Levand <geoff@infradead.org>, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>, Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>
- Subject: Bug#900581: linux: Enable Buster kernel features for newer ARM64 servers.
- From: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 13:29:01 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20180806132901.GA26530@kos.to>
- Reply-to: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>, 900581@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <1528966736.9841.41.camel@debian.org>
- References: <c1b1b7c1-fc04-607e-f077-5fa0dbba6e82@infradead.org> <f3703ec4acf446f4841135b6d3c0781c9a9f3755.camel@decadent.org.uk> <1528183694.8198.1.camel@debian.org> <c1b1b7c1-fc04-607e-f077-5fa0dbba6e82@infradead.org> <abe95041-4c7a-4a4f-7643-1fb92bd29ee8@infradead.org> <1528546509.8198.40.camel@debian.org> <c1b1b7c1-fc04-607e-f077-5fa0dbba6e82@infradead.org> <46b43344-f3a3-e65e-5387-b7fc25c3558b@infradead.org> <c1b1b7c1-fc04-607e-f077-5fa0dbba6e82@infradead.org> <1528966736.9841.41.camel@debian.org> <c1b1b7c1-fc04-607e-f077-5fa0dbba6e82@infradead.org>
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:58:56AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 12:25 -0700, Geoff Levand wrote:
> > On 06/09/2018 05:15 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> > > I think this is probably something for the arch (or perhaps
> > > platform)
> > > code to deal with. See for example all the various platform quirks
> > > in
> > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c, which fixup various wrongness and/or
> > > disable features.
> >
> > I followed your advice and created a fix in the arm64 acpi init
> > code of arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c. Here's the submission:
> >
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=152891415600796&w=2
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg82887.html
>
> Thanks!
Thanks indeed - unfortunately we seem to be endind up in
a dead end with the upstream developers:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg669674.html
Considering HPE didn't actually release the firmware, I think we
can go with just enabling the options and documenting the command line
option.
Riku
Reply to: