Subject: ACPI vs DT at runtime

From: [email-masked] (Jon Masters)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:43:41 -0500

On 11/18/2013 02:25 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:26:11AM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On 11/18/2013 12:19 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>>
>>> It's going to be a messy thing to even attempt. Look, I wish we had a
>>> time machine and could have done this whole thing years ago, but I'm not
>>> sure it would have gone differently. ACPI is something a lot of people
>>> emotionally hate. In the Enterprise space myself and others *need* it
>>> (along with UEFI) to have a scalable solution that doesn't result in an
>>> onslaught of customer support calls, which a non-standards body backed
>>> moving target of DTB will do. And besides all of the big boys are going
>>> to be using ACPI whether it's liked much or not.
>>
>> A while ago I mentioned producing a series of requirements that
>> articulates what Red Hat thinks an ARMv8 server looks like. Suffice it
>> to say that such requirements do in fact exist, and will be made
>> available in the not too distant future as part of another doc.
> 
> It's nice that there's an unpublished document with a RedHat logo on it
> somewhere that mandates what we, the kernel project, is going to do.
> 
> I thought both RedHat and you personally knew that we don't do things
> that way in the kernel, Jon. Published or not.

Olof, I understand completely. My hands are unfortunately tied and it's
not of my making (or my employer) on this front. In the ARM space, there
are a lot of entities involved when it comes to anything at all, and you
know what the NDA situation is like. I am pushing to get a few things
out there for broader consumption.

Jon.