ff <f...@shokubai.tech> schrieb am Mo., 8. Sept. 2025, 19:27: > Dear fellow firmware aficionados, > > Static ACPI has been adopted by Mercedes and other silicon vendors to: > - meet the safety requirements > - stay away from DT lifecycle issues > - leverage chiplet and CXL bindings > - truly multi-host/hypervisor (or even secure/no-secure should people want > it) as bindings are defined in an ad-hoc forum (not by an OS community) >
Hello François, Thanks for sharing. Which organization do you refer to by ad-hoc forum? Ad-hoc does not sound like a specification body. Wouldn't this work be done in the UEFI Forum? If ACPI looses the dynamic powers of ASL, what purpose would it serve that is not already covered by device-trees? Do the Mercedes aficionados plan to upstream the drivers changes? Best regards Heinrich > > DT community leaders and enthusiasts, I believe discussion on the bigger > picture related to DT relevance in the long run may be needed as I believe > many embedded solutions will follow Mercedes example. > > > Constructively yours, > > François-Frédéric > > > PS: static ACPI can be handled by a simple parser, do not execute any ACPI > byte code, is findable by EFI tables, code base is even smaller than libfdt. > _______________________________________________ > boot-architecture mailing list -- boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org > To unsubscribe send an email to boot-architecture-le...@lists.linaro.org > _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list -- boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to boot-architecture-le...@lists.linaro.org
