From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 21:58:09 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] ACPI in general In-Reply-To: <57F5AD87.6060504@codeaurora.org> References: <20161006014540.GJ4884@bill-the-cat> <57F5AD87.6060504@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20161006015809.GK4884@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 08:48:55PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > Tom Rini wrote: > >Well, I wouldn't phrase it quite like that. I would ask, do we want to > >go down this path? How far down would we want to go, if so? > > ACPI is pretty complicated, more so than DT. UEFI is also open > source. I think you need to find a very compelling reason to > reinvent the wheel. Yes. But in brief, we also don't go fully down the ACPI path for x86. But we can do "something". I assume you mean EDK II when you say UEFI is open source, and yes that's true. But I've said in other places (and other contexts) choices make all projects stronger. > ACPI on ARM is reserved for ARM Servers, which is a small market (in > term of number of units) compared to all other ARM chips. I think that takes too narrow of a view. If silicon is sold, someone will put it somewhere. And if there's firmware that works, and the buyer can modify to suit their design, they'll use it. -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: