Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Aug 2013 19:55:31 -0700 | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |