From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: ACPI vs Device Tree - moving forward Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 05:51:39 +0100 Message-ID: <20130824045139.GA4840@srcf.ucam.org> References: <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> <20130824014723.GA17488@roeck-us.net> <20130824023806.GA3388@srcf.ucam.org> <521820A3.2010501@roeck-us.net> <20130824030628.GA3668@srcf.ucam.org> <52183A56.5020707@roeck-us.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:38054 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754630Ab3HXEvo (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Aug 2013 00:51:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52183A56.5020707@roeck-us.net> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Darren Hart , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linus Walleij , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , ACPI Devel Maling List , "H. Peter Anvin" On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 09:45:10PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > "What happens when you have an ACPI device that contains an interrupt in > _CRS and contains a different interrupt in an embedded FDT block?" > > Does the situation occur today, ie does it ever happen that one interrupt > for a device is specified (if that is the correct term) in _CRS and > another by some other means ? The only case I can think of is PCI, where we ignored the ACPI-provided resources until fairly recently. That was a somewhat reasonable thing to do, since the hardware still had to support pre-ACPI operating systems and so the non-ACPI information sources were typically correct. Other than that, I think we always trust the ACPI data. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org