[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdU0qtMeX=7SY+32=30-QGMRniFVCCm217REJ1X+ZNJ=Aw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:13:42 +0100
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
patches@...ts.linux.dev, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] arm64: Unconditionally call unflatten_device_tree()
Hi Mark,
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 12:51 PM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 12:07:44PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Call this function unconditionally so that we can populate an empty DTB
> > on platforms that don't boot with a firmware provided or builtin DTB.
> > There's no harm in calling unflatten_device_tree() unconditionally.
>
> For better or worse, that's not true: there are systems the provide both a DTB
> *and* ACPI tables, and we must not consume both at the same time as those can
> clash and cause all sorts of problems. In addition, we don't want people being
> "clever" and describing disparate portions of their system in ACPI and DT.
We'd get to the latter anyway, when plugging in a USB device where the
circuitry on/behind the USB device is described in DT.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68korg
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists