[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFy2AqHd4=VGMaR7XsJ4z08_+AZiCeqZ8B0HB87y1NB1nA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:56:58 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>, ARM SoC <arm@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 0/3] ARM: SoC: Second round of changes for v3.12
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
>
> x86 PCs likely have at least some of this exact same HW, e.g. I2C-based
> LM90 thermal sensors. However, I /think/ this all gets hidden from the
> OS by ACPI or other firmware mechanisms. Do you prefer firmware
> abstraction over DT?
If there was a standard one, I would actually prefer it. Just not the
insanity of ACPI with pseudo-executable code, just plain read-only
tables. The fact that there isn't any unification in the ARM market
makes bad design decisions _worse_.
So yes, the same mess exists on PC's too (sound in particular tends to
be a morass of just basically crazy "this is wired up so-and-so"), but
on PCs you end up having the advantage of (a) more stuff is
discoverable and (b) a long-time standard platform so the stuff that
isn't is much less bad. ARM doesn't have that (and it's basically
impossible to create a standard in that space), and as a result
absolutely _everything_ is one-off, which just exacerbates the
problem.
Linus
--
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