Re: ACPI vs Device Tree - moving forward

[Guenter Roeck]

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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/