From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olof Johansson Subject: Re: ACPI vs DT at runtime Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:59:41 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20131115095717.GC1709@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20131115175241.GB27174@quad.lixom.net> <20131119113015.GH5914@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20131121162944.F087FC406A3@trevor.secretlab.ca> <20131121175822.GA9590@quad.lixom.net> <20131121185408.GX16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20131121185408.GX16735-l+eeeJia6m9vn6HldHNs0ANdhmdF6hFW@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Grant Likely , Mark Rutland , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 09:58:22AM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 04:29:44PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: >> > We are pushing a lot of boundaries and doing things on ACPI that have >> > never been done before. SPI, GPIOs, Clocks, Regulators, composite >> > devices, key-value properties. All brand new territory, and the Linux >> > world is driving a lot of it. >> >> This is a bit of a surprise and a significant concern. >> >> The whole point behind ACPI is that it's supposed to abstract away nearly >> all of that, and _not_ expose clocks, regulators and other things to >> the kernel. If we're going to expose it, then we might as well go all >> the way and do it with DT. > > This depends what you want from ACPI, and what market ACPI is being > targetted at. We're talking ACPI on servers here. -Olof -- 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: olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:59:41 -0800 Subject: ACPI vs DT at runtime In-Reply-To: <20131121185408.GX16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20131115095717.GC1709@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20131115175241.GB27174@quad.lixom.net> <20131119113015.GH5914@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20131121162944.F087FC406A3@trevor.secretlab.ca> <20131121175822.GA9590@quad.lixom.net> <20131121185408.GX16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 09:58:22AM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 04:29:44PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: >> > We are pushing a lot of boundaries and doing things on ACPI that have >> > never been done before. SPI, GPIOs, Clocks, Regulators, composite >> > devices, key-value properties. All brand new territory, and the Linux >> > world is driving a lot of it. >> >> This is a bit of a surprise and a significant concern. >> >> The whole point behind ACPI is that it's supposed to abstract away nearly >> all of that, and _not_ expose clocks, regulators and other things to >> the kernel. If we're going to expose it, then we might as well go all >> the way and do it with DT. > > This depends what you want from ACPI, and what market ACPI is being > targetted at. We're talking ACPI on servers here. -Olof