On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:59:41AM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux >> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > This depends what you want from ACPI, and what market ACPI is being >> > targetted at. >> >> We're talking ACPI on servers here. > > Now read the rest of my email, thanks. Yes, there are use cases for ACPI on embedded, which is what Intel is getting into and the standard is changing accordingly. On embedded ARM we're quite comfortable with DT for now, so it doesn't make sense to consider ACPI there just for the sake of it, as far as I am concerned. And, on servers, using the embedded-targeted bindings that expose all hardware details (and leaving implementation to the kernel) seems counter to the main target of forwards- and backwards compatibility. That can only really be achieved by getting rid of hardware diversity and reaching standardized hardware platforms with discoverable devices. Keeping the complex parts of power management out of the kernel on those platforms is going to be important too. -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
