On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 03:21:57PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: [snip] > I think that with ACPI systems the data we would have to convert is > going to be larger and more varied than that. Given we already have code > in the kernel for handling ACPI, I believe it would be more valuable to > leverage that and support ACPI directly in those places which require it I'll bite. How realistic a proprosition is that? When I've talked with a few folks here and there they say, roughly, that "the ARM bit" being set means it's a whole new ball game, and no, they don't expect to be able to re-use a lot of the existing code. -- Tom -- 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
