Re: [PATCH v7 12/13] ACPI / init: Invoke early ACPI initialization earlier

[Dou Liyang]

Hi Rafael,

At 08/25/2017 08:27 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2017 4:06:11 AM CEST Dou Liyang wrote:
[...]
> > > > BTW,
> > > > 1) I found your commit b064a8fa77df (" ACPI / init: Switch over
> > > > platform to the ACPI mode later") split the ACPI early initialization
> > > > code into acpi_early_init() and acpi_subsystem_init(). Actually enabling
> > > > the ACPI subsystem is in acpi_subsystem_init().
> > > >
> > > > 2) As we discussed earlier, invoking acpi_put_table() is not good for
> > > > this situation.
> > > >
> > > > So I do this patch, Is that goot to you? Any comments will be welcome.
> > > >
> > > > If it is OK, As the patches need to be re-based, and I also found
> > > > several spelling mistake, I will send a new version next week.
> > >
> > > OK, but does it depend on anything?  Or does anything depend on it?
> >
> > It depends on nothing and can be considered independent.
>
> OK
>
> Please send it as an independent patch, then.
>
> > [11/13] patch in this series depends on it. [11/13] patch caused an
> > ACPI error, we used this patch to fix it.
>
> So the ordering of patches in the series should be different, then.
>
> It should be ordered so as to avoid triggering the warning at all,
> so this patch should go before the [11/13].

Yes, Indeed.

> > > It is [12/13] in a series, so it looks like it doesn't depend on the
> > > previous patches in it, but the next one may depend on it?  Which is the
> > > case?
> >
> > The second case(the next one may depend on it) is what I want.
> >
> > But, seems I made a mistake about the order of the patches. I should
> > put it before [11/13] to avoid the ACPI error.
>
> Right.
>
> > I will adjust the order of the patches in the next version, and post
> > the whole series to you.
>
> Please just CC it to linux-acpi.

Got it. Will just CC it to linux-acpi, and CC the whole series to you.

Thanks,
	dou.
> Thanks,
> Rafael