| 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
| ||
|
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