On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:08:24PM +0000, Timur Tabi wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Timur Tabi <timur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > What is the reason to assume that DT is preferred over ACPI? I would > > have thought that if ACPI is present, then it means we're on an ARM64 > > server platform, and therefore it should be used. It seems silly to > > require acpi=force on every ARM64 server platform. > > So it looks like there's a whole conversation about this already in > this thread that I didn't notice. However, reading through all of it, > I still don't understand sure why the presence of ACPI tables is > insufficient to enable ACPI. Because ACPI on arm64 is still experimental, no matter how many people claim that it is production ready in their private setups. > In what situation would we want to ignore ACPI tables that are > present? When DT tables are also present (and for the first platforms, that's highly recommended, though not easily enforceable at the kernel level). -- 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
