On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 05:27:18PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Mark Rutland (2024-01-16 03:51:14) > > Hi Stephen, > > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 12:07:44PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > Call this function unconditionally so that we can populate an empty DTB > > > on platforms that don't boot with a firmware provided or builtin DTB. > > > There's no harm in calling unflatten_device_tree() unconditionally. > > > > For better or worse, that's not true: there are systems the provide both a DTB > > *and* ACPI tables, and we must not consume both at the same time as those can > > clash and cause all sorts of problems. In addition, we don't want people being > > "clever" and describing disparate portions of their system in ACPI and DT. > > > > It is a very deliberate choice to not unflatten the DTB when ACPI is in use, > > and I don't think we want to reopen this can of worms. > > Hmm ok. I missed this part. Can we knock out the initial_boot_params in > this case so that we don't unflatten a DTB when ACPI is in use? Why is that better than just not calling unflatten_device_tree(), as we do today? The cover letter says this is all so that we can run DT tests for the clk framework; why can't that just depend on the system being booted with DT rather than ACPI? We have other tests which are architecture and/or configuration dependent... Mark.
