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:	Fri, 23 Aug 2013 22:30:44 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <>
To:	Matthew Garrett <>
CC:	Darren Hart <>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
	Linus Walleij <>,
	"" <>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>
Subject: Re: ACPI vs Device Tree - moving forward

On 08/23/2013 09:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 09:45:10PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> "What happens when you have an ACPI device that contains an interrupt in
>>   _CRS and contains a different interrupt in an embedded FDT block?"
>> Does the situation occur today, ie does it ever happen that one interrupt
>> for a device is specified (if that is the correct term) in _CRS and
>> another by some other means ?
> The only case I can think of is PCI, where we ignored the ACPI-provided
> resources until fairly recently. That was a somewhat reasonable thing to
> do, since the hardware still had to support pre-ACPI operating systems
> and so the non-ACPI information sources were typically correct.
> Other than that, I think we always trust the ACPI data.
Seems to me you answered your question. It should be possible
to do the same if you replace (ACPI, BIOS) with (ACPI, FDT).
Plus, hopefully there should be no reason to specify data in FDT
that is already provided through ACPI. If it is specified anyway,
its handling is a matter of policy.


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