[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130824023806.GA3388@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 03:38:06 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
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 Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 06:47:23PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 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.
What happens when you have an ACPI device that contains an interrupt in
_CRS and contains a different interrupt in an embedded FDT block?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists