[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140918155439.GA25330@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:54:42 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Graeme Gregory <gg@...mlogic.co.uk>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"graeme.gregory@...aro.org" <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
"hanjun.guo@...aro.org" <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Charles Garcia-Tobin <Charles.Garcia-Tobin@....com>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:40:36AM +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 01:22:10AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 September 2014, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> > > It sounds like from the discussions in other threads that ARM64 should
> > > be following x86 and re-using DT bindings here. In which case there is
> > > not need to submit things to UEFI organisation.
> > >
> > > What I got a little lost in has there been a formal decision about DT
> > > bindings in _DSD?
> >
> > I think this is a discussion that still needs to happen: either we should
> > recommend everyone to use _DSD in favor of the alternatives, or we
> > should prohibit the use of _DSD. I have heard arguments both ways, but
> > hopefully we can find an easy answer.
>
> This discussion is just not going to happen until people at @redhat.com
> and people who have currently announced/released hardware are actually
> willing to start talking about it.
OTOH, there doesn't seem to be any urgency for merging arm64 ACPI
support, so this discussion can wait ;).
> Id love to be able to put my foot down and ban the use of _DSD for
> servers but I suspect that will not happen.
And the alternative would be hard-coded platform specific configuration
(or we assume that such configuration isn't needed)?
--
Catalin
--
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