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 22:30:44 -0700 Message-ID: <52184504.4070001@roeck-us.net> 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> <20130824045139.GA4840@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.active-venture.com ([67.228.131.205]:65408 "EHLO mail.active-venture.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755135Ab3HXFar (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Aug 2013 01:30:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130824045139.GA4840@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 08/23/2013 09:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > 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. > Seems to me you answered your question. It should be possible to do the same if you replace (ACPI, BIOS) with (ACPI, FDT). Plus, hopefully there should be no reason to specify data in FDT that is already provided through ACPI. If it is specified anyway, its handling is a matter of policy. Guenter