On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 08:16:30PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 05 January 2015 13:13:02 Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > since passing no DT tables to OS but > > > acpi=force is missing is a corner case, we can do a follow up patch to > > > fix that, does it make sense? > > > > Not entirely. Why would no dtb and no acpi=force be a corner case? I > > thought this should be the default when only ACPI tables are passed, no > > need for an additional acpi=force argument. > > We don't really support the case of only ACPI tables for now. The expectation > is that you always have working DT support, at least for the next few years > as ACPI features are ramping up, and without acpi=force it should not try > to use ACPI at all. So if both DT and ACPI are present, just use DT unless acpi=force is passed. So far I think we agree but what I want to avoid is always mandating acpi=force even when the DT tables are missing (in the long run). Now, what's preventing a vendor firmware from providing only ACPI tables? Do we enforce it in some way (arm-acpi.txt, kernel warning etc.) that both DT and ACPI are supported, or at least that dts files are merged in the kernel first? -- Catalin -- 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
