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: <521820A3.2010501@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Fri, 23 Aug 2013 19:55:31 -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 08/23/2013 07:38 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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?
>

Question is: Does this work _today_ with any existing driver, where
one interrupt is served through ACPI and another as 'standard' Linux
interrupt ? If yes, it must be working, and using fdt to describe
the interrupt mapping for the non-ACPI interrupt should not make
a difference. If no, the problem does not really have anything
to do with fdt.

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/