On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 12:11:33PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:57:03AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >> > I am trying to understand why x86 wants to do this, please understand >> > our point of view too, we do not want to block progress we want to >> > prevent a mess. >> >> One reason is that we have boards like Joule where developers are >> allowed to connect different peripherals using buses such as I2C and SPI >> where there is no native enumeration mechanism. This includes camera >> sensors and related so there needs to be a way for a developer to >> describe this in ACPI. Just as can be done when using ARM and DT. > > I am sorry I think we are at loggerheads on this. If you need a DT boot > with a DT, I could have converted all the ACPI tables to DT nodes on > ARM64 if I followed your reasoning (because we could not boot with ACPI > till relatively recently), we did not do it because ACPI and DT are > different specifications, incompatible with one another and governed by > different entities in a *very* different way. You are talking about core code and Mika is talking about device drivers. As far as the core code is concerned, I agree with you. As far as device drivers are concerned, I agree with Mika. You are both right. :-) Thanks, Rafael -- 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
