On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 09:57:17AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > first-class citizen. We don't need to modify every driver and subsystem > to support ACPI, only those necessary to support the minimal set of > platforms using ACPI. ACPI is new in the arm space, and we can enforce > quality standards on ACPI _now_ above what we're allowing for DT, and > avoid future problems. I think to replicate the kind of 'success' ACPI sees in x86-land you really need to push back on the HW folks and limit what drivers will be supported on ACPI systems. ACPI should be coupled with a standard basic HW environment - analogous to the stable APIC, PCI and HPET standards we have in x86. (ARMv8 only?) Other essential devices (ethernet, graphics, etc) should fit within the PCI framework. Again, mostly like x86. If you don't fit in that model then use DT. If you need the kernel to control clk, pinctrl, regulator, etc then you should be using DT. If you need a special one-off HW driver to boot to a console then you should be using DT ;) DT is here, it is working, it seems viable to set a strong goal for ACPI and shift everything else to DT: ACPI systems should have the broad compatability we see in x86. New hardware bought today should still boot a 3 year old OS. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
