On Tuesday 10 December 2013, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 04:28:52AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Monday 09 December 2013, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > People are trying to deploy ACPI-based embedded x86, and most of the > > > ACPI/DT integration discussion seems to have been based on the idea that > > > this is a worthwhile thing to support. If we're not interested in doing > > > so then we should probably make that a whole kernel decision rather than > > > a per architecture one. > > > Well, except it's not an architecture independent decision. An embedded > > x86 SoC will still be very much like a PC, just with a few things added > > in and some other bits left out, and you can already describe it mostly > > It's not just the SoC, it's also the rest of the board. The patches the > Intel guys are submitting at the minute are mainly for the off-SoC > devices at least as far as I noticed. This'll impact anyone who ends up > using ACPI, we need to at least pay attention to what's going on there. Yes, but I'm not that worried about off-soc stuff, which tends to be off the much simpler variety: a few MMIO or PIO registers, IRQs, GPIOs or (with ACPI-5.0) devices on i2c and spi buses. > > with plain ACPI-5.0. Also, there are only a couple of different non-PC style > > devices that Intel is integrating into their SoCs, so we're talking > > about a few dozen device drivers here. > > It's going to be way more than that for the whole system, and you can't > assume that all the system integrators are going to pay a blind bit of > notice to the reference designs. Some will just clone them but others > will bin them and do their own thing. They won't be able to change the on-chip components for obvious reasons. Arnd -- 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
