On 6 January 2015 at 11:20, Catalin Marinas catalin.marinas@arm.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 08:16:30PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 05 January 2015 13:13:02 Catalin Marinas wrote:
since passing no DT tables to OS but acpi=force is missing is a corner case, we can do a follow up patch to fix that, does it make sense?
Not entirely. Why would no dtb and no acpi=force be a corner case? I thought this should be the default when only ACPI tables are passed, no need for an additional acpi=force argument.
We don't really support the case of only ACPI tables for now. The expectation is that you always have working DT support, at least for the next few years as ACPI features are ramping up, and without acpi=force it should not try to use ACPI at all.
So if both DT and ACPI are present, just use DT unless acpi=force is passed. So far I think we agree but what I want to avoid is always mandating acpi=force even when the DT tables are missing (in the long run).
Now, what's preventing a vendor firmware from providing only ACPI tables? Do we enforce it in some way (arm-acpi.txt, kernel warning etc.) that both DT and ACPI are supported, or at least that dts files are merged in the kernel first?
How do we tell the difference between a DT passed purely for booting purposes ie a skeleton DT. And one which actually has hardware description as this needs to be done before unpacking the DT.
Graeme