Re: ACPI vs Device Tree - moving forward

[Matthew Garrett]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 06:47:23PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 02:10:36AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 05:13:45PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > 
> > > Did the group conclude that the idea of FDT augmenting ACPI is not feasible ? 
> > 
> > I think expressing FDT in ACPI is feasible, I'm just not sure it's 
> > desirable. We'd still end up with duplicate information and no mechanism 
> > for drivers to handle both.
> > 
> Not sure I understand what you are saying. My understanding of "augment"
> would be that there is ACPI information, and there is a separate FDT
> (or an FDT overlay) providing additional information. There should be
> no duplicate information in this model.

What happens when you have an ACPI device that contains an interrupt in 
_CRS and contains a different interrupt in an embedded FDT block?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/