From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: ACPI vs DT at runtime Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 16:27:25 +0100 Message-ID: <20140506152725.E5B90C40959@trevor.secretlab.ca> References: <20131115095717.GC1709@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20131118150052.GC24408@sirena.org.uk> <20131119091216.GA4412@netboy> <20131120064056.GB5272@netboy> <20131121192136.GA16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20131121204704.E4487C40753@trevor.secretlab.ca> <97692EF2-013E-4E4B-BC16-E0915D67EFEC@antoniou-consulting.com> <53673866.9000105@ahsoftware.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <53673866.9000105@ahsoftware.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Alexander Holler , Pantelis Antoniou , Catalin Marinas Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Russell King - ARM Linux , Richard Cochran , Olof Johansson , Mark Brown , Jon Masters , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 05 May 2014 09:06:14 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote: > Am 22.11.2013 13:00, schrieb Pantelis Antoniou: > > > As one that's going to be dealing with this, please don't take the DTS > > files from the kernel. > > > > If you do this, I can guarantee that within a year almost no ARM board using DT > > will boot a mainline kernel. > > > > The reason is that vendors have enough trouble (and failing) tracking a single > > tree, adding yet another will just end to the vendor trees as far as the eye can see. > > > > Maybe, maybe, EVMs from silicon vendors will still boot, but I doubt any other > > customer board will work. > > A bit late (I don't follow the ML (or what happens in the ARM world) > closely, but as I've recently read that ARM64 will go UEFI and ACPI, I > wonder what was the reasoning behind that decision. ARM64 will include support for UEFI an ACPI, but U-Boot and DT are not going away. Really the only market segment that will care about ACPI is ARM servers. Nobody else (embedded, mobile) needs to worry about it. g. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: grant.likely@secretlab.ca (Grant Likely) Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 16:27:25 +0100 Subject: ACPI vs DT at runtime In-Reply-To: <53673866.9000105@ahsoftware.de> References: <20131115095717.GC1709@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20131118150052.GC24408@sirena.org.uk> <20131119091216.GA4412@netboy> <20131120064056.GB5272@netboy> <20131121192136.GA16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20131121204704.E4487C40753@trevor.secretlab.ca> <97692EF2-013E-4E4B-BC16-E0915D67EFEC@antoniou-consulting.com> <53673866.9000105@ahsoftware.de> Message-ID: <20140506152725.E5B90C40959@trevor.secretlab.ca> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, 05 May 2014 09:06:14 +0200, Alexander Holler wrote: > Am 22.11.2013 13:00, schrieb Pantelis Antoniou: > > > As one that's going to be dealing with this, please don't take the DTS > > files from the kernel. > > > > If you do this, I can guarantee that within a year almost no ARM board using DT > > will boot a mainline kernel. > > > > The reason is that vendors have enough trouble (and failing) tracking a single > > tree, adding yet another will just end to the vendor trees as far as the eye can see. > > > > Maybe, maybe, EVMs from silicon vendors will still boot, but I doubt any other > > customer board will work. > > A bit late (I don't follow the ML (or what happens in the ARM world) > closely, but as I've recently read that ARM64 will go UEFI and ACPI, I > wonder what was the reasoning behind that decision. ARM64 will include support for UEFI an ACPI, but U-Boot and DT are not going away. Really the only market segment that will care about ACPI is ARM servers. Nobody else (embedded, mobile) needs to worry about it. g.