On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 11:37:04PM +0200, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 02:26:50PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi > > And it is not an option for those boards to use DT in the firmware. > > There's nothing stopping these systems defining a DSD that contains a > DTB which overrides some or all of the ACPI if the system supports it > (or otherwise providing both system descriptions). Please, no. We very deliberately avoided this mix-and-match scheme for arm64 (it was proposed in discussions several times), because it suffers form worse issues than PRP (since you can't corss-reference between DT and ACPI). The arm64 kernel needs a DTB to pass some OS-specific stuff like bootargs, but when using ACPI almost everything else is ignored -- we don't unflatten the tree and we don't instanciate devices from it. > The two can coexist happily enough as arm64 has shown and it seems like it > ought to save a whole lot of work especially around the bits that need inter > device links and are hence need some new ACPI bindings defining. A single kernel binary can happily support both, yes. But not a mixture at runtime. Thanks, Mark. -- 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
