From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751168Ab3LJUAv (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:00:51 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:56882 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750836Ab3LJUAu (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:00:50 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [RFC part1 PATCH 1/7] ACPI: Make ACPI core running without PCI on ARM64 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:00:20 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.8.0-22-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Matthew Garrett , Mark Rutland , Bjorn Helgaas , "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" , "Russell King - ARM Linux" , "patches@linaro.org" , Catalin Marinas , Linus Walleij , Daniel Lezcano , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Tomasz Nowicki , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , Hanjun Guo , Olof Johansson , Will Deacon , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" References: <1386088611-2801-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <201312100428.52588.arnd@arndb.de> <20131210192217.GI11468@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20131210192217.GI11468@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201312102100.20570.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:0c5CLNCKrAp1/Kr6fAsB5uK9o6Yp7KMFbF0tkVmfkWS d0zXckUf6ZTGQbo6obHUfVl2xTaopx8ExSB9/OXH/pEmVo24F8 Y/1/rdOf8klQSrBmhxI8P6RzWws6NEkfTkZcsamhDyClqF6RI4 ktufVdLQjVZzJdaMCKIlJKKEEooZLZT3p18Nv1Qi0Cs/NcLkP+ ak1B9mB++qrvQQ5u6g7kFqos0xtBFbpJIODODGGPwQ/CZ7PbCc VmNT4ZVLqGTurp9fOKBv+UQpauxcMvEvoOP0ox0bv7ehdj7etL DaY/aK7oU3BL3LOBZh6ea/M3/LNIg9ZG3Ec0SYVN3Y1BvCQgZx w0r8l6Foc7kNCUXwjwlc= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 10 December 2013, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 04:28:52AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Monday 09 December 2013, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > People are trying to deploy ACPI-based embedded x86, and most of the > > > ACPI/DT integration discussion seems to have been based on the idea that > > > this is a worthwhile thing to support. If we're not interested in doing > > > so then we should probably make that a whole kernel decision rather than > > > a per architecture one. > > > Well, except it's not an architecture independent decision. An embedded > > x86 SoC will still be very much like a PC, just with a few things added > > in and some other bits left out, and you can already describe it mostly > > It's not just the SoC, it's also the rest of the board. The patches the > Intel guys are submitting at the minute are mainly for the off-SoC > devices at least as far as I noticed. This'll impact anyone who ends up > using ACPI, we need to at least pay attention to what's going on there. Yes, but I'm not that worried about off-soc stuff, which tends to be off the much simpler variety: a few MMIO or PIO registers, IRQs, GPIOs or (with ACPI-5.0) devices on i2c and spi buses. > > with plain ACPI-5.0. Also, there are only a couple of different non-PC style > > devices that Intel is integrating into their SoCs, so we're talking > > about a few dozen device drivers here. > > It's going to be way more than that for the whole system, and you can't > assume that all the system integrators are going to pay a blind bit of > notice to the reference designs. Some will just clone them but others > will bin them and do their own thing. They won't be able to change the on-chip components for obvious reasons. Arnd