From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: ACPI vs Device Tree - moving forward Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 18:47:23 -0700 Message-ID: <20130824014723.GA17488@roeck-us.net> References: <20130820192650.GA19470@srcf.ucam.org> <6438184.2yT2NMB1CE@vostro.rjw.lan> <20130821233942.GA21502@srcf.ucam.org> <1810269.JOHnJ0H7P9@vostro.rjw.lan> <20130822000306.GA21785@srcf.ucam.org> <1377300343.5259.84.camel@dvhart-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com> <20130823233805.GA1801@srcf.ucam.org> <1377301548.5259.91.camel@dvhart-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com> <20130824001345.GD14810@roeck-us.net> <20130824011036.GA2827@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:54022 "EHLO mail-pa0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754735Ab3HXBr0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 21:47:26 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130824011036.GA2827@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Darren Hart , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linus Walleij , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , ACPI Devel Maling List , "H. Peter Anvin" 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