lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: ACPI vs Device Tree - moving forward
On 08/23/2013 07:38 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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?
>

Question is: Does this work _today_ with any existing driver, where
one interrupt is served through ACPI and another as 'standard' Linux
interrupt ? If yes, it must be working, and using fdt to describe
the interrupt mapping for the non-ACPI interrupt should not make
a difference. If no, the problem does not really have anything
to do with fdt.

Guenter



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-24 05:21    [W:0.048 / U:0.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site