On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 06:47:23PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 02:10:36AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 05:13:45PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > Did the group conclude that the idea of FDT augmenting ACPI is not feasible ? > > > > I think expressing FDT in ACPI is feasible, I'm just not sure it's > > desirable. We'd still end up with duplicate information and no mechanism > > for drivers to handle both. > > > Not sure I understand what you are saying. My understanding of "augment" > would be that there is ACPI information, and there is a separate FDT > (or an FDT overlay) providing additional information. There should be > no duplicate information in this model. What happens when you have an ACPI device that contains an interrupt in _CRS and contains a different interrupt in an embedded FDT block? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
