[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEEQ3wnsedWJYEEg8z+3C_HuCca0nD50NGpCdU3scxavrrOucA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 14:19:46 +0800
From: 运辉崔 <cuiyunhui@...edance.com>
To: Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, ardb@...nel.org,
palmer@...belt.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
aou@...s.berkeley.edu, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
rminnich@...il.com, mark.rutland@....com, lpieralisi@...nel.org,
rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org, jdelvare@...e.com,
yc.hung@...iatek.com, angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com,
allen-kh.cheng@...iatek.com, pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com,
tinghan.shen@...iatek.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, geshijian@...edance.com,
weidong.wd@...edance.com, alexghiti@...osinc.com
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] riscv: obtain ACPI RSDP from FFI.
Hi Sunil,
On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 12:22 PM Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Yunhui Cui,
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 02:47:41PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > Hey,
> > %subject: riscv: obtain ACPI RSDP from FFI.
> >
> > This subject is a bit unhelpful because FFI would commonly mean "foreign
> > function interface" & you have not yet introduced it. It seems like it
> > would be better to do s/FFI/devicetree/ or similar.
> > Please also drop the full stop from the commit messages ;)
> >
> > Please use a cover letter for multi-patch series & include changelogs.
> >
> > +CC Sunil, Alex:
> >
> > Can you guys please take a look at this & see if it is something that we
> > want to do (ACPI without EFI)?
> >
>
> We have supported ACPI only with UEFI. The current booting contract
> between firmware and OS is to pass only one of DT or ACPI, not both.
> This approach brings another booting contract for Linux mixing ACPI and
> DT which affects RVI specs. As per policy and since it can affect
> multiple OSs, a frozen RVI spec is required for taking this patch into
> linux. So, could you please bring this topic for discussion in [1] and
> get agreement?
>
> Isn't it simpler to provide a minimum UEFI configuration table and
> stubbed BS/RS?
>
> Have you done a PoC? I am curious how do you handle EFI memory map
> dependencies.
Yes, Poc has been completed.
a memory node in DTS can solve it.
>
> In case this is approved, I am wondering why do we need new FFI?
>
> [1] - https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-brs
We have discussed with Ard and Ron many times about the series of
questions you mentioned above, and reached a consensus.
Please see the v1:
https://patches.linaro.org/project/linux-acpi/patch/20230426034001.16-1-cuiyunhui@bytedance.com/
Thanks,
Yunhui
Powered by blists - more mailing lists