Hej, On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Olof, > > Just in case this thread fails to reach its predicted triple-digits, I > would like to revisit something you mentioned in this original email > and then didn't expand on. > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 05:44:10PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: >> The more I start to see early UEFI/ACPI code, the more I am certain >> that we want none of that crap in the kernel. It's making things >> considerably messier, while we're already very busy trying to convert >> everything over and enable DT -- we'll be preempting that effort just >> to add even more boilerplate everywhere and total progress will be >> hurt. >> >> The server guys really want UEFI for their boot protocols, >> installation managers, etc, etc. That's fine, let them do that, but >> that doesn't mean we need to bring the same APIs all the way into the >> kernel. > > There is zero dependency on ACPI in the UEFI support code, or indeed in > UEFI itself. Both runtime services support and stub loader have been > designed hardware-description agnostic. > > Are you saying that we should not support the kernel interfaces to UEFI > on ARM*, or are you simply mentioning it in passing because it is the > bit responsible for populating the pointer to the ACPI tables? Good question. UEFI and ACPI usually gets grouped together when they really are separate (even though ACPI _without_ UEFI is highly unlikely). So, to clarify: What I meant with the above is that UEFI as a bootloader is fine as far as I am concerned. I'm also in general ok with the introduction of efivars that you're doing, etc. -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
