From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Subject: Re: ACPI vs DT at runtime Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 14:06:04 -0500 Message-ID: <20131119190604.GH420@bill-the-cat> References: <20131115175241.GB27174@quad.lixom.net> <20131119113015.GH5914@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <201311191505.33636.arnd@arndb.de> <20131119152157.GO5914@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131119152157.GO5914-NuALmloUBlrZROr8t4l/smS4ubULX0JqMm0uRHvK7Nw@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , Grant Likely , Rob Herring List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 03:21:57PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: [snip] > I think that with ACPI systems the data we would have to convert is > going to be larger and more varied than that. Given we already have code > in the kernel for handling ACPI, I believe it would be more valuable to > leverage that and support ACPI directly in those places which require it I'll bite. How realistic a proprosition is that? When I've talked with a few folks here and there they say, roughly, that "the ARM bit" being set means it's a whole new ball game, and no, they don't expect to be able to re-use a lot of the existing code. -- Tom -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html