From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leif Lindholm Subject: Re: ACPI vs DT at runtime Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 12:51:37 +0100 Message-ID: <20131119115137.GC22634@rocoto.smurfnet.nu> References: <20131115095717.GC1709@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20131115175241.GB27174@quad.lixom.net> <20131119113015.GH5914@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20131119113557.GI5914@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131119113557.GI5914-NuALmloUBlrZROr8t4l/smS4ubULX0JqMm0uRHvK7Nw@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: Olof Johansson , Grant Likely , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:35:57AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > The UEFI spec pulls in portions of ACPI. I do not know the full extent > > of the interaction between the two, but I know that they are not > > completely decoupled. As you have pointed out we are not experienced > > with ACPI or UEFI, so I don't think we can make statements that one is > > perfectly fine without the other. > > Given Leif's comments it seems that they are decoupled sufficiently to > be considered separately. Well, UEFI should be considered separately from ACPI. I am not convinced it makes sense to consider ACPI for any case that does not also include UEFI. / 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: leif.lindholm@linaro.org (Leif Lindholm) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 12:51:37 +0100 Subject: ACPI vs DT at runtime In-Reply-To: <20131119113557.GI5914@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20131115095717.GC1709@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20131115175241.GB27174@quad.lixom.net> <20131119113015.GH5914@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20131119113557.GI5914@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <20131119115137.GC22634@rocoto.smurfnet.nu> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:35:57AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > The UEFI spec pulls in portions of ACPI. I do not know the full extent > > of the interaction between the two, but I know that they are not > > completely decoupled. As you have pointed out we are not experienced > > with ACPI or UEFI, so I don't think we can make statements that one is > > perfectly fine without the other. > > Given Leif's comments it seems that they are decoupled sufficiently to > be considered separately. Well, UEFI should be considered separately from ACPI. I am not convinced it makes sense to consider ACPI for any case that does not also include UEFI. / Leif