Hej,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 03:29:58PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> 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.
Thank you for this clarification.
/
Leif
--
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
