On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 05:58:54PM +0000, Timur Tabi wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Al Stone <al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Introduce one early parameters "off" and "force" for "acpi", acpi=off > > will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to > > enable ACPI on ARM64. > > > > Disable ACPI before early parameters parsed, and enable it to pass > > "acpi=force" if people want use ACPI on ARM64. This ensures DT be > > the prefer one if ACPI table and DT both are provided at this moment. > > 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. I'm against requiring acpi=force when *only* ACPI tables are present (I don't like a command line argument to become firmware-kernel ABI), but otherwise DT takes precedence (it was the first supported booting method on arm64 and currently it is more mature and feature-rich than ACPI on arm64). -- 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
