On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 04:05:37PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Saturday 16 November 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 08:56:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > For all I know, doing this in ACPI is something that is only now being > > > discussed as Intel wants to be able to reuse the existing features from > > > DT enabled drivers in the kernel and share the implementation between > > > embedded x86 SoCs and embedded ARM/PowerPC/MIPS/... SoCs. That part actually > > > isn't as crazy. > > > > > > The existing ACPI usage however is basically all binary and cannot be > > > shared with DT, in particular it won't help for the orthogonal problem of > > > using ACPI to get "enterprise server" features on ARM64. > > > > That's strange, because the patches I've seen from people who want to > > add ACPI support to AMBA are all based around very similar strings to > > those in DT to lookup the same data in ACPI. > > Can you point to specific patches? No, because they weren't publically posted, so I don't feel that I can say all that much; they were from quite a large company though. > I can't say I'm an expert on this, but everything I've seen with ACPI > is tables of binary data with four-letter identifiers that are defined > by the ACPI group, but not using strings in a similar manner to DT. They are using strings which are the same as the DT properties, but without the vendor prefix - but yes, to only retrieve things like booleans, u32s and such like. They also have support for fixed-rate clocks via the clk API too... I'd like them to post the patches publically so a more open discussion could occur. -- 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
