From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: ACPI vs Device Tree - moving forward Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:39:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20130821233942.GA21502@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20130820192650.GA19470@srcf.ucam.org> <20130821160903.GA11908@srcf.ucam.org> <6438184.2yT2NMB1CE@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:60188 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752943Ab3HUXju (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:39:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6438184.2yT2NMB1CE@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linus Walleij , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , ACPI Devel Maling List , Guenter Roeck , Darren Hart , "H. Peter Anvin" On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 01:11:14AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Moreover, even if we are able to instruct everyone interested how to create > the requisite ACPI tables, there is the little problem of shipping them > somehow so that they actually can be used by the kernel that needs to be > addressed too. I think the expectation in the ACPI ecosystem has to be that devices ship their own ACPI tables. I can't see any benefit in using ACPI if the aim is to just carry on shipping files with the kernel or install media - in that case, just use DT. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org