linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: pavel@ucw.cz (Pavel Machek)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC] ACPI on arm64 TODO List
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 20:39:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150112193905.GB5281@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACxGe6ub0UsUNs1-2NziK_sGEtpxTjcDD+Eto3YOsNkvWxaNcw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon 2015-01-12 14:41:50, Grant Likely wrote:
> 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.

Ok, so what is the primary reason? As far as I could tell it is
"Microsoft wants ACPI" and "hardware people want Microsoft" and
"fragmentation is bad so we do ACPI" (1) (and maybe "someone at RedHat
says they want ACPI" -- but RedHat people should really speak for
themselves.)

You snipped quite a lot of reasons why ACPI is inferior that were
below this line in email.

									Pavel

(1) ignoring fact that it causes fragmentation between servers and phones.

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

  reply	other threads:[~2015-01-12 19:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-12-16  2:18 [RFC] ACPI on arm64 TODO List Al Stone
2014-12-16 11:27 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-12-16 15:27   ` Catalin Marinas
2014-12-17  0:03     ` Al Stone
2014-12-17  9:25       ` Catalin Marinas
2014-12-18  4:57         ` Jon Masters
2014-12-18  9:55           ` Catalin Marinas
2014-12-17 13:43       ` [Linaro-acpi] " Charles Garcia-Tobin
2014-12-16 15:48   ` Mark Rutland
2014-12-17  0:37     ` Al Stone
2014-12-17  9:08       ` G Gregory
2014-12-17 16:02       ` Mark Rutland
2014-12-17 16:52         ` Hurwitz, Sherry
2014-12-17 18:14       ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-12-18  5:04       ` Jon Masters
2014-12-18 14:36         ` Jon Masters
2014-12-16 22:55   ` Al Stone
2014-12-17 17:31     ` Catalin Marinas
2014-12-17 22:26   ` Grant Likely
2015-01-10 14:44     ` Grant Likely
2015-01-12 10:21       ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-01-12 12:00         ` Grant Likely
2015-01-12 19:40           ` [Linaro-acpi] " Arnd Bergmann
2015-01-13 17:22             ` Grant Likely
2015-01-14  0:26               ` Al Stone
2015-01-15  4:07                 ` Hanjun Guo
2015-01-15 17:15                   ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-01-15 17:19                 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-01-12 14:23       ` Pavel Machek
2015-01-12 14:41         ` Grant Likely
2015-01-12 19:39           ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2015-01-12 19:55             ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-01-13 14:12             ` Grant Likely
2015-01-14  1:21             ` Al Stone
2015-01-15 17:45               ` [Linaro-acpi] " Linda Knippers
2015-01-13 17:02         ` Grant Likely
2015-01-05 20:52 ` Pavel Machek
2015-01-06 11:53   ` Catalin Marinas

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150112193905.GB5281@amd \
    --to=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).