Pete Batard wrote: > That's because it uses Device Tree, and the DT based version of the > Genet driver has been in the kernel for a while, so it should be mostly > okay. > > But we have to use ACPI in UEFI for various reasons. The Pi 4 has a few > quirks, especially when it comes to DMA and USB, that paradoxically make > an ACPI implementation easier to sort out compared to DT. This doesn't > mean we won't support DT, just that ACPI is more suitable for now. So we > need ACPI bindings in Genet, whereas the existing Genet driver is > intended as a DT mode driver. > > As a matter of fact, much of what the proposed patch does is add ACPI > support to the existing driver. > > Also please bear in mind that the Pi Foundation adds a lot of quirks to > their 32-bit kernels, some of which have yet to find their way in > mainline aarch64. Raspbian is a very custom as a kernel.
Very interesting notes. I was planning to try debian kernel or custom kernel build on debian. What I tried recently is do raspbian network boot (diskless) and yesterday did debootstrap from within raspbian of a debian buster armhf. The supplied kernel did not work (of course), so I was going to look into that, but I am wondering now, after reading this, if I should take arm64 instead of armhf. For now I use the raspbian kernel in debian, but as you say it is 32 and I am not into the details, so thank you for the hints. Does it mean one should prefer arm64 and take a newer 5.x kernel? regards
