On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 03:10:36PM +0200, Herve Codina wrote: > On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 17:34:54 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 03:49:25PM +0200, Herve Codina wrote: > > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:36:28 +0300 > > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 04:55:40PM +0200, Herve Codina wrote: ... > > > > This is incorrect, they never had ACPI to begin with. Also there is third > > > > platform that are using DT on x86 core — SpreadTrum based phones. > > > > > > I will rework the commit log to avoid 'mixing ACPI and device-tree' > > > > > > For "SpreadTrum based phones", do you have an idea about the Kconfig symbol > > > I could use to filter our this x86 systems? > > > > Hmm... good question. I don't think it was anything. The Airmont core just > > works and doesn't require anything special to be set. And platform is x86 with > > the devices that are established on ARM, so nothing special in device tree > > either, I suppose. Basically any x86 platform with OF should be excluded, > > rather think of what should be included. But I see that as opposite > > requirements to the same function. I have no idea how to solve this. Perhaps > > find that SpreadTrum Intel Atom-based device? Would be really hard, I believe. > > Especially if we want to install a custom kernel there... > > > > > Anything I find upstream related to SpreadTrum seems base on ARM cpus. > > > I probably miss something. > > > > There were two SoCs that were Intel Atom based [1]. And some patches [2] to x86 > > DT code were made to support those cases. > > > > > > And not sure about AMD stuff (Geode?). > > > > > > Same here, if some AMD devices need to be filtered out, is there a specific > > > Kconfig symbol I can use ? > > > > This is question to AMD people. I have no clue. > > > > [1]: https://www.anandtech.com/show/11196/mwc-2017-spreadtrum-launches-8core-intel-airmontbased-soc-with-cat-7-lte-for-smartphones > > > > [2]: 4e07db9c8db8 ("x86/devicetree: Use CPU description from Device Tree") > > and co. `git log --no-merges 4e07db9c8db8 -- arch/x86/kernel/devicetree.c > > I have tried to find a solution for this topic. > > Indeed, this patch enables fw_devlink based on device-tree on all x86 > platform except OLPC and CE4100. > > You have mentioned some other x86 based system that could have issues with > fw_devlink and it seems to be hard to have a complete list of systems for > which we should not enable fw_devlink (potential issues and so regression > against current kernel behavior). > > As you also proposed, we can thing on the opposite direction and enable > fw_devlink on x86 systems that need it. > > We need it because we need the device-tree description over PCI device feature > (CONFIG_PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES) on x86 in order to support the LAN966x use case. > > What do you think about the following condition? > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86) && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES)) > return 0; /* Not enabled */ > > CONFIG_PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES has already to set explicitly by the user. > > Do you think it makes sense and could be a good alternative instead of > filtering out a list of x86 systems ? At least this won't break old platforms that won't set that configuration option. Ideally, of course, it would be nice to have some kind of detection at run-time... -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
