linux-kernel - Re: ACPI vs Device Tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130824014723.GA17488@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Fri, 23 Aug 2013 18:47:23 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: ACPI vs Device Tree - moving forward

On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 02:10:36AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 05:13:45PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 
> > Did the group conclude that the idea of FDT augmenting ACPI is not feasible ? 
> 
> I think expressing FDT in ACPI is feasible, I'm just not sure it's 
> desirable. We'd still end up with duplicate information and no mechanism 
> for drivers to handle both.
> 
Not sure I understand what you are saying. My understanding of "augment"
would be that there is ACPI information, and there is a separate FDT
(or an FDT overlay) providing additional information. There should be
no duplicate information in this model.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/