On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:26:11AM -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > On 11/18/2013 12:19 AM, Jon Masters wrote: > > > It's going to be a messy thing to even attempt. Look, I wish we had a > > time machine and could have done this whole thing years ago, but I'm not > > sure it would have gone differently. ACPI is something a lot of people > > emotionally hate. In the Enterprise space myself and others *need* it > > (along with UEFI) to have a scalable solution that doesn't result in an > > onslaught of customer support calls, which a non-standards body backed > > moving target of DTB will do. And besides all of the big boys are going > > to be using ACPI whether it's liked much or not. > > A while ago I mentioned producing a series of requirements that > articulates what Red Hat thinks an ARMv8 server looks like. Suffice it > to say that such requirements do in fact exist, and will be made > available in the not too distant future as part of another doc. It's nice that there's an unpublished document with a RedHat logo on it somewhere that mandates what we, the kernel project, is going to do. I thought both RedHat and you personally knew that we don't do things that way in the kernel, Jon. Published or not. -Olof -- 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
