On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 04:49:48PM +0200, Gerald BAEZA wrote: > Hello > > Two questions to rebound on last meeting minutes and "Working with > ACPI and UEFI on ARM" message from Grant: > > - Since both ACPI and UEFI topics are joined in those recent > discussions, does that mean that you don't want to consider one of > them (UEFI) without the other one (ACPI) now ? There was some begin > of discussion earlier this year and recent activities on UEFI so I > am wondering if this will go on as this or be necessarily combined > with ACPI.
It is not a 1:1 connection. ACPI is important to talk about because we *know* there will be systems shipped that use it. However, our focus and drive is still to use the FDT regardless of the firmware used because it solves our problems, particularly in the embedded space, that ACPI just does not help us with. So, no, talking about UEFI does not necessitate talking about ACPI. However, talking about ACPI probably does mean that we'll talk about UEFI since I don't see any need or desire by the U-Boot and Barebox maintainers to implement an ACPI tree. > - About UEFI implementation: Tianocore > (http://sourceforge.net/projects/tianocore/) seems to be the de > facto open source UEFI implementation, as far as I understand. This > one is delivered under BSD license (2-clause version, right ?) I believe that is correct. > that > would make many OEM happy, compare to the GPL license (U-Boot / > Barebox) that they usually don't like for their bootloader. Can you > confirm this and/or make it clear in the list started by Grant above > ? I'll leave the confirmation of the license to the folks working on UEFI right now, but I can certainly talk about that on the list. g. _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
