I like this better😊
- DW - -----Original Message----- From: arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces@arm.com arm.ebbr-discuss-bounces@arm.com On Behalf Of Mark Brown Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 3:18 AM To: Grant Likely Grant.Likely@arm.com Cc: boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org; arm.ebbr-discuss arm.ebbr-discuss@arm.com; nd nd@arm.com Subject: Re: [Arm.ebbr-discuss] [PATCH] Update manifesto from comments on mailing list
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:11:53PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
On 09/07/2018 13:39, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:17:56PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
- While ACPI provides more standardization, Devicetree is
preferred in may embedded
- platforms for its flexibility.
- While ACPI provides more standardization, Devicetree is
- preferred in many embedded platforms for its flexibility.
Bit of a pet peeve of mine since ASoC means I'm frequently having to think about systems that fall off the edge of what ACPI can express and it's just a miserable experience.
Understood, but I'm going to leave it as is for now. I don't want to get into a discussion of the reasons Devicetree is preferred. I just want to acknowledge that both DT and ACPI are supported options.
OK... part of what I was reacting to there was that the text read to me like it was making value judgements about the merits of the two (or at least it's a lot like what people say). How about either striking this entirely or something like:
Either ACPI or Devicetree may be used depending on which meets the needs of the system better, they have different platform models. IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.