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  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]
Date:	Sat, 24 Aug 2013 03:38:06 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <>
To:	Guenter Roeck <>
Cc:	Darren Hart <>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
	Linus Walleij <>,
	"" <>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>
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 |
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists