On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat 2015-01-10 14:44:02, Grant Likely wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Monday 15 December 2014 19:18:16 Al Stone wrote: >> >>> 7. Why is ACPI required? >> >>> * Problem: >> >>> * arm64 maintainers still haven't been convinced that ACPI is >> >>> necessary. >> >>> * Why do hardware and OS vendors say ACPI is required? >> >>> * Status: Al & Grant collecting statements from OEMs to be posted >> >>> publicly early in the new year; firmware summit for broader >> >>> discussion planned. >> >> >> >> I was particularly hoping to see better progress on this item. It >> >> really shouldn't be that hard to explain why someone wants this feature. >> > >> > I've written something up in as a reply on the firmware summit thread. >> > I'm going to rework it to be a standalone document and post it >> > publicly. I hope that should resolve this issue. >> >> I've posted an article on my blog, but I'm reposting it here because >> the mailing list is more conducive to discussion... >> >> http://www.secretlab.ca/archives/151 > > Unfortunately, I seen the blog post before the mailing list post, so > here's reply in blog format. > > Grant Likely published article about ACPI and ARM at > > http://www.secretlab.ca/archives/151 > > . He acknowledges systems with ACPI are harder to debug, but because > Microsoft says so, we have to use ACPI (basically). Please reread the blog post. Microsoft is a factor, but it is not the primary driver by any means. g. -- 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
