[U-Boot] ACPI in general

[U-Boot] ACPI in general

[york sun]

Simon and Bin,

Is there any activity to bring ACPI to other than x86 arch? If not, do 
we have a plan to do so?

York

[U-Boot] ACPI in general

[Bin Meng]

Hi York,

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:38 AM, york sun <york.sun@nxp.com> wrote:
> Simon and Bin,
>
> Is there any activity to bring ACPI to other than x86 arch? If not, do
> we have a plan to do so?
>

No plan to do ACPI on ARM yet.

Regards,
Bin

[U-Boot] ACPI in general

[Simon Glass]

Hi York,

On 4 October 2016 at 10:38, york sun <york.sun@nxp.com> wrote:
> Simon and Bin,
>
> Is there any activity to bring ACPI to other than x86 arch? If not, do
> we have a plan to do so?

Not that I know of, sorry.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] ACPI in general

[york sun]

On 10/05/2016 07:47 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi York,
>
> On 4 October 2016 at 10:38, york sun <york.sun@nxp.com> wrote:
>> Simon and Bin,
>>
>> Is there any activity to bring ACPI to other than x86 arch? If not, do
>> we have a plan to do so?
>
> Not that I know of, sorry.

Simon and Bin,

Thanks for replying.

York

[U-Boot] ACPI in general

[Timur Tabi]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>> Is there any activity to bring ACPI to other than x86 arch? If not, do
>> we have a plan to do so?
>
> Not that I know of, sorry.

Note that ACPI for ARM exists on Linux already, and as far as I know,
all ARM ACPI systems use UEFI, not U-Boot.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

[U-Boot] ACPI in general

[york sun]

On 10/05/2016 04:15 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> Is there any activity to bring ACPI to other than x86 arch? If not, do
>>> we have a plan to do so?
>>
>> Not that I know of, sorry.
>
> Note that ACPI for ARM exists on Linux already, and as far as I know,
> all ARM ACPI systems use UEFI, not U-Boot.
>

Exactly the reason I asked. Wondering if U-Boot is going down this path.

York

[U-Boot] ACPI in general

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:33:14PM +0000, york sun wrote:
> On 10/05/2016 04:15 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> >>> Is there any activity to bring ACPI to other than x86 arch? If not, do
> >>> we have a plan to do so?
> >>
> >> Not that I know of, sorry.
> >
> > Note that ACPI for ARM exists on Linux already, and as far as I know,
> > all ARM ACPI systems use UEFI, not U-Boot.
> 
> Exactly the reason I asked. Wondering if U-Boot is going down this path.

Well, I wouldn't phrase it quite like that.  I would ask, do we want to
go down this path?  How far down would we want to go, if so?

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20161005/ecb261ce/attachment.sig>

[U-Boot] ACPI in general

[Timur Tabi]

Tom Rini wrote:
> Well, I wouldn't phrase it quite like that.  I would ask, do we want to
> go down this path?  How far down would we want to go, if so?

ACPI is pretty complicated, more so than DT.  UEFI is also open source. 
  I think you need to find a very compelling reason to reinvent the wheel.

ACPI on ARM is reserved for ARM Servers, which is a small market (in 
term of number of units) compared to all other ARM chips.

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.

[U-Boot] ACPI in general

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 08:48:55PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Tom Rini wrote:
> >Well, I wouldn't phrase it quite like that.  I would ask, do we want to
> >go down this path?  How far down would we want to go, if so?
> 
> ACPI is pretty complicated, more so than DT.  UEFI is also open
> source.  I think you need to find a very compelling reason to
> reinvent the wheel.

Yes.  But in brief, we also don't go fully down the ACPI path for x86.
But we can do "something".

I assume you mean EDK II when you say UEFI is open source, and yes
that's true.  But I've said in other places (and other contexts) choices
make all projects stronger.

> ACPI on ARM is reserved for ARM Servers, which is a small market (in
> term of number of units) compared to all other ARM chips.

I think that takes too narrow of a view.  If silicon is sold, someone
will put it somewhere.  And if there's firmware that works, and the
buyer can modify to suit their design, they'll use it.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20161005/b7a0d6b9/attachment.sig>

[U-Boot] ACPI in general

[Timur Tabi]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> I think that takes too narrow of a view.  If silicon is sold, someone
> will put it somewhere.  And if there's firmware that works, and the
> buyer can modify to suit their design, they'll use it.

I believe that ACPI systems generally expect EFI runtime services to
be present as well.  I know ours does.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

[U-Boot] ACPI in general

[Bin Meng]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think that takes too narrow of a view.  If silicon is sold, someone
>> will put it somewhere.  And if there's firmware that works, and the
>> buyer can modify to suit their design, they'll use it.
>
> I believe that ACPI systems generally expect EFI runtime services to
> be present as well.  I know ours does.

This is not true. ACPI does not require any EFI runtime services.

Regards,
Bin

[U-Boot] ACPI in general

[Timur Tabi]

Bin Meng wrote:
>> >I believe that ACPI systems generally expect EFI runtime services to
>> >be present as well.  I know ours does.
> This is not true. ACPI does not require any EFI runtime services.

Please re-read my sentence.  I said "generally expect".

If you guys want to spend the man-years necessary to get ACPI and ARM 
working in U-Boot, go right on ahead.  I think it's a fool's errand.  I 
work on ARM Servers, so I know the pain that is ACPI.  You don't want 
it.  If your system works with device tree, stick with that.  ACPI has 
no value outside of ARM servers, and ARM servers already have UEFI.

-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.  Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

[U-Boot] ACPI in general

[Olof Johansson]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Bin Meng wrote:
>>>
>>> >I believe that ACPI systems generally expect EFI runtime services to
>>> >be present as well.  I know ours does.
>>
>> This is not true. ACPI does not require any EFI runtime services.
>
>
> Please re-read my sentence.  I said "generally expect".
>
> If you guys want to spend the man-years necessary to get ACPI and ARM
> working in U-Boot, go right on ahead.  I think it's a fool's errand.  I work
> on ARM Servers, so I know the pain that is ACPI.  You don't want it.  If
> your system works with device tree, stick with that.  ACPI has no value
> outside of ARM servers, and ARM servers already have UEFI.

Remember, if you expect to run Linux on top of ACPI, that is only
supported for SBSA-compliant platforms.

No ACPI on embedded platforms, period.


-Olof