From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752566AbeB1KcU (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:32:20 -0500 Received: from mail-lf0-f68.google.com ([209.85.215.68]:42562 "EHLO mail-lf0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752173AbeB1KcS (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2018 05:32:18 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvilq82n1W2vBbDoIuhBThPSiPZiTmTx51eCsffSabebWE0Di6O5xEnVv3/FULLo+jrYEf6yH3BptSTolMfHrg= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1519812442.10722.248.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <85047448dc1d2d3c725b6b78d5ef2a89fc81b83b.1519659254.git.jtoppins@redhat.com> <1b5a55bd-5bc7-ecd0-99f0-71dd05119743@redhat.com> <1519812442.10722.248.camel@linux.intel.com> From: Bhupesh Sharma Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 16:02:16 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/acpi: make ACPI boot preference configurable To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Jonathan Toppins , linux-arm-kernel , Al Stone , Jonathan Masters , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, Ingo Molnar , Prarit Bhargava , James Morse , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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? Yes the patch in discussion is for arm64. So my comments above are in context to arm64. >> 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. AFAIK upstream arm64 u-boot doesn't support ACPI boot method for armv8/arm64 yet. Regards, Bhupesh