On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Mark Rutland wrote: > > We all know DT considerably better to a point where I would recommend > > that they flash a DTB in their UEFI firmware instead of go with ACPI. For > > simple hardware and basic devices we've got most bindings sorted out by > > now, and we've decided on backwards compatibility from here on out. > > If a vendor does this, with a DTB that correctly describes their > hardware then I am not against it (and would prefer this case to mapping > from ACPI to DT). I think that the firmware passing a DTB to the bootloader/kernel is the best option we have. > For that case we will also require a nailed-down boot > protocol that allows for either DTB or ACPI. The latest documentation patch for the "arm/arm64 UEFI boot protocol" implies that UEFI on ARM is already capable of passing a DTB to the kernel: "The implementation depends on receiving information about the UEFI environment in a Flattened Device Tree (FDT) - so is only available with CONFIG_OF." Maybe we just need to better document it? > (only one at a time) I would not go as far as requiring that only one is available. Certainly I would mandate that either of them are independently complete and sufficient to describe the platform. -- 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
