From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:14:53 +0000 Subject: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v7 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi" and pass acpi=force to enable ACPI In-Reply-To: References: <1421247905-3749-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1421247905-3749-5-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20150128181453.GG31752@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:08:24PM +0000, Timur Tabi wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Timur Tabi 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