On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:01:22 +0000, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 04:29:44PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > > > Personally, I think the issue of ACPI support should be taken on a > > patch-by-patch basis. A lot of the things that need to be done are quite > > discrete and fairly well contained. If the patches don't look that way > > then push back on them. For the parts that look ready, go ahead and > > merge it. Push back on the ones that don't. > > I think the most valuable thing in ACPI is the static data tables. > Things like BERT, EINJ, HEST, MPST and the various other bits of RAS > functionality have value in the ARM world, and being able to share the > implementation is a benefit. But that can be implemented without > worrying about using ACPI for device discovery or interfacing. /complete digression.../ As far as static tables are concerned, it would be trivial to pull those into a DT system. g. -- 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
