On 3 Jul 2023, at 19:58, Emil Renner Berthing <emil.renner.berthing@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 at 15:33, 运辉崔 <cuiyunhui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi drew, >> >> On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 9:01 PM Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> >>> (This is a reply to a non-existent cover letter.) >> >> This has been discussed many times with Ard, Please refer to : >> https://patches.linaro.org/project/linux-acpi/patch/20230426034001.16-1-cuiyunhui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Hi Yunhui, > > From that discussion it was mentioned that that arm supports 3 methods > of booting: > direct + devicetree > EFI + devicetree > EFI + ACPI > ..but not > direct + ACPI > > To me it isn't obvious from that or this thread, and since arm seems > to be doing fine without the 4th option I'm curious why that's > necessary on riscv? If anything we should be removing option 1, because that’s not a cross-OS standard (though RISC-V’s SBI direct booting is at least not tied to the OS). Any application-class platform spec is going to mandate EFI, because, whatever your thoughts of EFI are, that is *the* standard. And if you’re willing to pick up all the complexity of ACPI, what’s a bit of EFI (especially if you only go for a minimal one a la U-Boot)? Jess >>> I'm not a big fan of adding yet another interface. Have you considered >>> doing something like [1]? >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/UefiPayloadPkg > > Also you didn't answer this question, which I'd also like to hear a reply to. > > /Emil > >>> Thanks, >>> drew >> >> Thanks, >> Yunhui >> >> _______________________________________________ >> linux-riscv mailing list >> linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv > > _______________________________________________ > linux-riscv mailing list > linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
