Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v7 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi" and pass acpi=force to enable ACPI

Catalin Marinas
2015-01-28T18:14:53Z

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:08:24PM +0000, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > What is the reason to assume that DT is preferred over ACPI? I would
> > have thought that if ACPI is present, then it means we're on an ARM64
> > server platform, and therefore it should be used. It seems silly to
> > require acpi=force on every ARM64 server platform.
>
> So it looks like there's a whole conversation about this already in
> this thread that I didn't notice. However, reading through all of it,
> I still don't understand sure why the presence of ACPI tables is
> insufficient to enable ACPI.

Because ACPI on arm64 is still experimental, no matter how many people
claim that it is production ready in their private setups.

> In what situation would we want to ignore ACPI tables that are
> present?

When DT tables are also present (and for the first platforms, that's
highly recommended, though not easily enforceable at the kernel level).

--
Catalin