Skip to contentSkip to conversation

x86_64: Make ACPI the default reset option

PATCH In review Aaron Durbin 2 participants 3 messages Jul 16, 2007 – Jul 17, 2007 Documentation

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 x86_64: Make ACPI the default reset option

Make ACPI be the default reset method for x86_64. If the reset mechanism fails using ACPI, it will default to using the keyboard controller.

---

This patch relies on the ACPI reboot mechanism patch.

Documentation/x86_64/boot-options.txt +2 -2
index a9253bc..1a9419c 100644
@@ -113,10 +113,10 @@ Rebooting
    warm   Don't set the cold reboot flag
    cold   Set the cold reboot flag
    triple Force a triple fault (init)
-   kbd    Use the keyboard controller. cold reset (default)
+   kbd    Use the keyboard controller. cold reset
    acpi   Use the ACPI RESET_REG in the FADT. If ACPI is not configured or the
           ACPI reset does not work, the reboot path attempts the reset using
-          the keyboard controller.
+          the keyboard controller. (default)
 
    Using warm reset will be much faster especially on big memory
    systems because the BIOS will not go through the memory check.
arch/x86_64/kernel/reboot.c +1 -1
index 239b576..6fc1b72 100644
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ static enum { 
 	BOOT_TRIPLE = 't',
 	BOOT_KBD = 'k',
 	BOOT_ACPI = 'a'
-} reboot_type = BOOT_KBD;
+} reboot_type = BOOT_ACPI;
 static int reboot_mode = 0;
 int reboot_force;
 
#1 lore raw
Quoted 3 lines · On Monday 16 July 2007 20:02:21 Aaron Durbin wrote:

Make ACPI be the default reset method for x86_64. If the reset mechanism fails using ACPI, it will default to using the keyboard controller.

Again why?

You really can't just throw out these patches without any explanation.

-Andi

#2 lore raw
Quoted 9 lines · Andi Kleen
Quoted 3 lines · On Monday 16 July 2007 20:02:21 Aaron Durbin wrote:

Make ACPI be the default reset method for x86_64. If the reset mechanism fails using ACPI, it will default to using the keyboard controller.

Again why?

You really can't just throw out these patches without any explanation.

Sorry. It was more of just getting a proposal on thoughts on making this default. I wasn't too sure it would fly. :) I should have been more explicit with my intentions. It does fix some broken systems I have seen though with no ill side effects. I would like to see this tested on more than the systems I have access to in order to see what kind of fall out there is.

-Aaron