On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:10:18PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 09:45:51AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > - I am especially curious about input from Andy and Mika from > > the Intel/ACPI camp on what they have seen for non-discoverable > > plug-in boards. Does this problem even exist in the Intel > > world, or not... > I'm also interested in the "what about ACPI" question? > Using C makes describing a board in ACPI fairly easy. AFAICT allocating > IDs to a board rather than its included components is fairly natural for > ACPI. Yes, they have this problem - they have plug in modules on for example the minnowboard and some of their other reference platforms. They have overlays working for ACPI, these have their own problems in that they don't appear to have the equivalent of DMI data (at least the patches people are sending indicates that they don't) which is unfortuate as the idiomatic thing for ACPI is as you say to key huge chunks of data of quirk tables based on the DMI information for their boards. They don't to my knowledge have generic connectors or anything like that, it's just patches to the base ACPI.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
