On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:16:22PM +0000, Jon Masters wrote: > On 01/29/2015 06:11 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > Sorry Jon but statements like this make me wonder whether we should > > simply let the whole ARM ACPI be an out of tree distro business. We > > spend a long time discussing OS-agnostic firmware implementation, > > planning mini-summits, just to get certain Linux distro representative > > stating that the kernel-firmware interface we discuss here only matters > > for those planning to follow upstream. Certain Linux distros will play > > by other rules. > > Oh, don't take it that way - I just mean that if someone needs a > different ACPI always on, they can do that separately. And that's exactly what I'm trying to get consensus on. ACPI always on together with DT always on, subject to config options being enabled (not patching). It's up to firmware (and vendor) to provide only ACPI tables to the kernel if not interested in DT. In such case I don't want to see additional kernel parameters. But if the firmware provides both, then it is a user choice which one to use, defaulting to DT. -- 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
