ACPI

[Grant Likely]

On 27 Nov 2013 22:17, "Matt Sealey" <neko at bakuhatsu.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca> wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:11:23 -0600, Matt Sealey <neko at bakuhatsu.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:55:10PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Linus Walleij
> >> >> <linus.walleij at linaro.org> wrote:
> >> >> > I have a feeling we should not recommend ARM implementers
> >> >> > to go and do things like this.
> >>
> >> I have a real problem with the concept of putting device trees inside
> >> ACPI, while still relying on this consensus that the preferred boot
> >> method will also be UEFI.
> >
> > ACPI and UEFI are completely separate things.
>
> Good lord, Grant. I have a working knowledge of both..

We're obviously getting crossed wires. I apologize for
misunderstanding. Yes, LinuxLoader is an obsolete hack. Roy Franz has
patches to port the x86 EFI_STUB to arm. I was merely using
LinuxLoader as evidence that having DT support in Tianocore should not
be a problem.

g.