Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754387Ab3HXCze (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 22:55:34 -0400 Received: from mail.active-venture.com ([67.228.131.205]:56235 "EHLO mail.active-venture.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753819Ab3HXCzd (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 22:55:33 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 108.223.40.66 Message-ID: <521820A3.2010501@roeck-us.net> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 19:55:31 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Garrett CC: Darren Hart , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linus Walleij , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , ACPI Devel Maling List , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: ACPI vs Device Tree - moving forward References: <6438184.2yT2NMB1CE@vostro.rjw.lan> <20130821233942.GA21502@srcf.ucam.org> <1810269.JOHnJ0H7P9@vostro.rjw.lan> <20130822000306.GA21785@srcf.ucam.org> <1377300343.5259.84.camel@dvhart-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com> <20130823233805.GA1801@srcf.ucam.org> <1377301548.5259.91.camel@dvhart-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com> <20130824001345.GD14810@roeck-us.net> <20130824011036.GA2827@srcf.ucam.org> <20130824014723.GA17488@roeck-us.net> <20130824023806.GA3388@srcf.ucam.org> In-Reply-To: <20130824023806.GA3388@srcf.ucam.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1535 Lines: 34 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/