On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Pavel Machek pavel@ucw.cz wrote:
On Sat 2015-01-10 14:44:02, Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Grant Likely grant.likely@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
On Monday 15 December 2014 19:18:16 Al Stone wrote:
- Why is ACPI required?
- Problem:
- arm64 maintainers still haven't been convinced that ACPI is necessary.
- Why do hardware and OS vendors say ACPI is required?
- Status: Al & Grant collecting statements from OEMs to be posted publicly early in the new year; firmware summit for broader discussion planned.
I was particularly hoping to see better progress on this item. It really shouldn't be that hard to explain why someone wants this feature.
I've written something up in as a reply on the firmware summit thread. I'm going to rework it to be a standalone document and post it publicly. I hope that should resolve this issue.
I've posted an article on my blog, but I'm reposting it here because the mailing list is more conducive to discussion...
Unfortunately, I seen the blog post before the mailing list post, so here's reply in blog format.
Grant Likely published article about ACPI and ARM at
http://www.secretlab.ca/archives/151
. He acknowledges systems with ACPI are harder to debug, but because Microsoft says so, we have to use ACPI (basically).
Please reread the blog post. Microsoft is a factor, but it is not the primary driver by any means.
g.