From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Holler Subject: Re: ACPI vs DT at runtime Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 09:06:14 +0200 Message-ID: <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <97692EF2-013E-4E4B-BC16-E0915D67EFEC-wVdstyuyKrO8r51toPun2/C9HSW9iNxf@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Pantelis Antoniou , Catalin Marinas Cc: devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Russell King - ARM Linux , Richard Cochran , Grant Likely , Jon Masters , Mark Brown , Olof Johansson , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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. Does anyone really assume we will become high quality UEFI and ACPI blobs from vendors? And such with reasonable support/update periods? For me that sounds like someone asked dreamers and was unable to adjust those answers in regard to reality. Regards, Alexander Holler -- 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: holler@ahsoftware.de (Alexander Holler) Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 09:06:14 +0200 Subject: ACPI vs DT at runtime In-Reply-To: <97692EF2-013E-4E4B-BC16-E0915D67EFEC@antoniou-consulting.com> 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> Message-ID: <53673866.9000105@ahsoftware.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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. Does anyone really assume we will become high quality UEFI and ACPI blobs from vendors? And such with reasonable support/update periods? For me that sounds like someone asked dreamers and was unable to adjust those answers in regard to reality. Regards, Alexander Holler