[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150106112000.GA8829@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 11:20:01 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"hanjun.guo@...aro.org" <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>,
"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Charles Garcia-Tobin <Charles.Garcia-Tobin@....com>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"graeme.gregory@...aro.org" <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
"Kangkang.Shen@...wei.com" <Kangkang.Shen@...wei.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 08:16:30PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 05 January 2015 13:13:02 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > since passing no DT tables to OS but
> > > acpi=force is missing is a corner case, we can do a follow up patch to
> > > fix that, does it make sense?
> >
> > Not entirely. Why would no dtb and no acpi=force be a corner case? I
> > thought this should be the default when only ACPI tables are passed, no
> > need for an additional acpi=force argument.
>
> We don't really support the case of only ACPI tables for now. The expectation
> is that you always have working DT support, at least for the next few years
> as ACPI features are ramping up, and without acpi=force it should not try
> to use ACPI at all.
So if both DT and ACPI are present, just use DT unless acpi=force is
passed. So far I think we agree but what I want to avoid is always
mandating acpi=force even when the DT tables are missing (in the long
run).
Now, what's preventing a vendor firmware from providing only ACPI
tables? Do we enforce it in some way (arm-acpi.txt, kernel warning etc.)
that both DT and ACPI are supported, or at least that dts files are
merged in the kernel first?
--
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