On 01/06/2015 05:06 PM, Jon Masters wrote: > Hi Arnd, > > Happy New Year! > > On 01/06/2015 02:21 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Tuesday 06 January 2015 11:24:43 Jon Masters wrote: >>> On 01/06/2015 06:20 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> I know of some (server) firmware that will only provide ACPI in the >>> medium term, so this is coming. >> >> Medium term is fine, as long as they are not expecting their hardware >> to be supported by Linux before ACPI support is stable enough for >> general consumption. > > To be clear, I think that's reasonable for upstream. I may love ACPI, > but vendors can always ship kernels with a config supporting ACPI only > platforms in the interim period if they have a commercial justification > and that doesn't have to be supported in terms of the upstream default. > > But, perhaps there's a way to have it both ways, you could consider also > a CONFIG_EXPERT option that would allow you to build a kernel with ACPI > only support in the medium term. That way, if someone is running a > vendor kernel, but wants to track upstream development more closely, > they can do so on such hardware by enabling the expert config bit. Clarification: I'm suggesting that in the medium term the dependency upon CONFIG_EXPERT either goes away or is replaced with requiring ACPI and DTB in the non "expert" case and requiring "expert" selected to allow a kernel that will boot with ACPI only. But only a suggestion. Jon. -- 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
