Re: [RFC] ACPI on arm64 TODO List

Grant Likely
2015-01-12T14:42:11Z

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> On Sat 2015-01-10 14:44:02, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> >> On Monday 15 December 2014 19:18:16 Al Stone wrote:
>> >>> 7. Why is ACPI required?
>> >>> * Problem:
>> >>> * arm64 maintainers still haven't been convinced that ACPI is
>> >>> necessary.
>> >>> * Why do hardware and OS vendors say ACPI is required?
>> >>> * Status: Al & Grant collecting statements from OEMs to be posted
>> >>> publicly early in the new year; firmware summit for broader
>> >>> discussion planned.
>> >>
>> >> I was particularly hoping to see better progress on this item. It
>> >> really shouldn't be that hard to explain why someone wants this feature.
>> >
>> > I've written something up in as a reply on the firmware summit thread.
>> > I'm going to rework it to be a standalone document and post it
>> > publicly. I hope that should resolve this issue.
>>
>> I've posted an article on my blog, but I'm reposting it here because
>> the mailing list is more conducive to discussion...
>>
>> http://www.secretlab.ca/archives/151
>
> Unfortunately, I seen the blog post before the mailing list post, so
> here's reply in blog format.
>
> Grant Likely published article about ACPI and ARM at
>
> http://www.secretlab.ca/archives/151
>
> . He acknowledges systems with ACPI are harder to debug, but because
> Microsoft says so, we have to use ACPI (basically).

Please reread the blog post. Microsoft is a factor, but it is not the
primary driver by any means.

g.