From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752330AbeB1KH1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:07:27 -0500 Received: from mga12.intel.com ([192.55.52.136]:45161 "EHLO mga12.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751819AbeB1KH0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:07:26 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,405,1515484800"; d="scan'208";a="207682699" Message-ID: <1519812442.10722.248.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/acpi: make ACPI boot preference configurable From: Andy Shevchenko To: Bhupesh Sharma , Jonathan Toppins Cc: linux-arm-kernel , astone@redhat.com, Jonathan Masters , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, Ingo Molnar , Prarit Bhargava , James Morse , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:07:22 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <85047448dc1d2d3c725b6b78d5ef2a89fc81b83b.1519659254.git.jtoppins@redhat.com> <1b5a55bd-5bc7-ecd0-99f0-71dd05119743@redhat.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.5-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 00:29 +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Jonathan Toppins > wrote: > > On 02/27/2018 07:40 AM, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > > > > > For arm64 DT is suppose to *not* be the preferred method, yet still > > DT > > is preferred if the firmware provides both tables to the kernel. > However several arm64 products in embedded applications are still not > SBSA/SBBR compliant (and I have worked on a couple of such > implementations earlier) and still use bootloaders like u-boot (and > also closed-source implementations) which have no support for ACPI > currently and still rely on a DT to pass the system hardware > information to the kernel. > So far only open source implementation of a ACPI compliant firmware is > EDK2/UEFI which supports ACPI as the preferred boot method You mean for non-x86? > and I am > not sure if all u-boot/in-house firmware implementations are planned > to be ported over to EDK2/UEFI for embedded applications. Why do you need that? ACPI (if you are talking about ACPI only, w/o EFI) is supported in U-Boot for few x86 SoCs/platforms. Moreover, one of them had never been shipped with ACPI/EFI complaint services in firmware and ACPI layer is purely done in U-Boot. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy