Hey, On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 11:56:48PM +0800, 葛士建 wrote: > On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 8:55 PM Sunil V L <sunilvl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 08:05:48PM +0800, 葛士建 wrote: > > > Hi Sunil, > > > > > > From Sunil: > > > IMO, if the question is generic like "Is UEFI mandatory for RISC-V?", > > > the answer will be solid "no" because we can use DT without UEFI. But if > > > you ask whether UEFI is mandatory for ACPI support on RISC-V, then the > > > answer will be "yes". > > > ---- Why UEFI is mandatory for ACPI support on RISC-V? As we know, on X86, > > > ACPI works well without UEFI. Is there any limitation on RISC-V > > > architecture? > > Yes, the limitation is RISC-V can not use IA-PC BIOS. Please see > > section 5.2.5 and 15 in ACPI spec. > > > > I don't have much to add to Ard's reasons. > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/CAMj1kXFZren0Q19DimwQaETCLz64D4bZQC5B2N=i3SAWHygkTQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > I don't think that's the limitation on RISC-V. BTW, how does OSPM find the > RSDP on ARM systems? Does it meet 5.2.5? > > Here are > 1. Purpose: purpose is to provide another option on Firmware Solution; Our > purpose is NOT to ban UEFI. > 2. Both ARM and RISC-V starts from UBOOT solution, and that's close to > coreboot, so we would like to enable flexible and rich ecosystem. > 3. We don't like to push coreboot and UEFI together, so we don't plan to > enable UEFI in coreboot(maybe from Uboot); because that makes the solution > complex. > 4. I think we should fix the request and problem, banning or protecting > something is NOT the goal of us. > > I think the solution is for both RISC-V and ARM, and also it works on X86 > if it's done. > Let me know what the problem and impact is, please. If you are going to keep arguing this, please stop sending top-posted HTML to the mailing list. It makes it impossible for those not in the CC list to follow along. Thanks, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
