On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'd agree as soon as someone can convince me that we actually want ACPI > support in the kernel for ARM64 servers. As far as I'm concerned it's quite > possible that the people who have worked on this for the past couple of > years behind closed doors know what they are doing and it will all be > good, but it's also possible that it turns into a huge trainwreck once > we see multiple implementations that have fundamentally incompatible > requirements regarding what they want from ACPI and we end up not doing > it at all. Here is a piece I've noticed very clearly in the GPIO subsystem: ACPI is persued for x86 servers, desktops by all vendors. For embedded x86 it is persued by Intel *ONLY*. We still get several embedded GPIO drivers for x86 that use ISA-style portmapped I/O probing (!) So, hehe, in init/Kconfig there is still the much-debated Kconfig option "EMBEDDED"... Should ACPI for ARM64 be depends on !EMBEDDED? Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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
