On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 at 14:33, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 12:48:19PM +0200, Maximilian Luz wrote: > > [...] > > > > > I would very much like to avoid the need for special bootloaders. The > > devices we're talking about are WoA devices, meaning they _should_ > > ideally boot just fine with EFI and ACPI. > > > > Completely agreed. This is not a special bootloader though. Quite the opposite. It's a standard UEFI compliant bootloader, which uses the fact that EFI is supposed to be extensible. It installs a linux specific config table, similar to how we install a linux specific protocol to load our initrd and it's certainly lot more scalable than adding new stuff to the device tree. > > > From an end-user perspective, it's annoying enough that we'll have to > > stick with DTs for the time being due to the use of PEPs in ACPI. > > But have we explored or investigated what it takes to rewrite ACPI f/w > to just use standard methods ? Does it require more firmware changes or > new firmware entities or impossible at any cost ? > > For me that is more important than just getting this one on DT. Because > if you take that path, we will have to keep doing that, with loads of > unnecessary drivers if they are not shared with any other SoC with DT > support upstream. We might also miss chance to get things added to the ACPI > spec as we don't care which means that we never be able to use ACPI on > similar future platforms even though they get shipped with ACPI. > > It will be a loop where we constantly keep converting this ACPI shipped > platform into DT upstream. IMHO we don't want to be there. > > -- > Regards, > Sudeep Regards /Ilias
