On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 02:40:37PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 10:43:50PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote: > > I did not want to enable the whole of ACPI code as I need a tiny portion of > > it. > > Then yes, saving memory and having a smaller binary were considerations. > > > > The only dependency that ACPI_MADT_WAKEUP has on ACPI is the code to read > > and > > parse the ACPI table that enumerates the mailbox. (There are a couple of > > declarations for CPU offlining that need tweaking if I want > > ACPI_MADT_WAKEUP to > > not depend on ACPI at all). > > > > The DeviceTree firmware only needs the code to wake CPUs up. That is the > > code > > I am carving out. > > > > Having said that, vmlinux and bzImage increase by 4% if I enable ACPI. > > So, is it a concern or not? I cannot understand from the above whether you > care about 4% or not.
I apologize for my late reply. Also, I am sorry I was not clear. I needed to consult with a few stakeholders whether they could live with the increase in size resulting from having CONFIG_ACPI=y. They can. If it is OK with Rafael, I plan to post a new version that drops this patch and adds the necessary function stubs for the !CONFIG_ACPI case. Thanks and BR, Ricardo
