From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Cc: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: ACPI vs Device Tree - moving forward
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 18:47:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130824014723.GA17488@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130824011036.GA2827@srcf.ucam.org>
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 02:10:36AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 05:13:45PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> > Did the group conclude that the idea of FDT augmenting ACPI is not feasible ?
>
> I think expressing FDT in ACPI is feasible, I'm just not sure it's
> desirable. We'd still end up with duplicate information and no mechanism
> for drivers to handle both.
>
Not sure I understand what you are saying. My understanding of "augment"
would be that there is ACPI information, and there is a separate FDT
(or an FDT overlay) providing additional information. There should be
no duplicate information in this model.
Guenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-24 1:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-20 19:26 ACPI vs Device Tree - moving forward Matthew Garrett
2013-08-20 20:51 ` Darren Hart
2013-08-20 20:57 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-08-20 21:03 ` Darren Hart
2013-08-20 21:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-20 21:36 ` Guenter Roeck
2013-08-20 21:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-20 23:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-21 15:57 ` Linus Walleij
2013-08-21 16:09 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-08-21 23:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-21 23:39 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-08-22 0:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-22 0:03 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-08-23 23:25 ` Darren Hart
2013-08-23 23:38 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-08-23 23:45 ` Darren Hart
2013-08-24 0:13 ` Guenter Roeck
2013-08-24 1:10 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-08-24 1:47 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2013-08-24 2:38 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-08-24 2:55 ` Guenter Roeck
2013-08-24 3:06 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-08-24 4:45 ` Guenter Roeck
2013-08-24 4:51 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-08-24 5:30 ` Guenter Roeck
2013-08-26 9:32 ` Linus Walleij
2013-08-26 10:48 ` Graeme Gregory
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130824014723.GA17488@roeck-us.net \
--to=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.