Re: ACPI vs DT at runtime

[Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Olof,

Just in case this thread fails to reach its predicted triple-digits, I
would like to revisit something you mentioned in this original email
and then didn't expand on.

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 05:44:10PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
> The more I start to see early UEFI/ACPI code, the more I am certain
> that we want none of that crap in the kernel. It's making things
> considerably messier, while we're already very busy trying to convert
> everything over and enable DT -- we'll be preempting that effort just
> to add even more boilerplate everywhere and total progress will be
> hurt.
> 
> The server guys really want UEFI for their boot protocols,
> installation managers, etc, etc. That's fine, let them do that, but
> that doesn't mean we need to bring the same APIs all the way into the
> kernel.

There is zero dependency on ACPI in the UEFI support code, or indeed in
UEFI itself. Both runtime services support and stub loader have been
designed hardware-description agnostic.

Are you saying that we should not support the kernel interfaces to UEFI
on ARM*, or are you simply mentioning it in passing because it is the
bit responsible for populating the pointer to the ACPI tables?

/
    Leif
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html