Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:14:53 +0000 | From | Catalin Marinas <> | Subject | Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v7 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi" and pass acpi=force to enable ACPI |
| |
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:08:24PM +0000, Timur Tabi wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> wrote: > > What is the reason to assume that DT is preferred over ACPI? I would > > have thought that if ACPI is present, then it means we're on an ARM64 > > server platform, and therefore it should be used. It seems silly to > > require acpi=force on every ARM64 server platform. > > So it looks like there's a whole conversation about this already in > this thread that I didn't notice. However, reading through all of it, > I still don't understand sure why the presence of ACPI tables is > insufficient to enable ACPI.
Because ACPI on arm64 is still experimental, no matter how many people claim that it is production ready in their private setups.
> In what situation would we want to ignore ACPI tables that are > present?
When DT tables are also present (and for the first platforms, that's highly recommended, though not easily enforceable at the kernel level).
-- Catalin
| |