On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 00:29 +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Jonathan Toppins <jtopp...@redhat.com > > wrote: > > On 02/27/2018 07:40 AM, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > > >
> > For arm64 DT is suppose to *not* be the preferred method, yet still > > DT > > is preferred if the firmware provides both tables to the kernel. > However several arm64 products in embedded applications are still not > SBSA/SBBR compliant (and I have worked on a couple of such > implementations earlier) and still use bootloaders like u-boot (and > also closed-source implementations) which have no support for ACPI > currently and still rely on a DT to pass the system hardware > information to the kernel. > So far only open source implementation of a ACPI compliant firmware is > EDK2/UEFI which supports ACPI as the preferred boot method You mean for non-x86? > and I am > not sure if all u-boot/in-house firmware implementations are planned > to be ported over to EDK2/UEFI for embedded applications. Why do you need that? ACPI (if you are talking about ACPI only, w/o EFI) is supported in U-Boot for few x86 SoCs/platforms. Moreover, one of them had never been shipped with ACPI/EFI complaint services in firmware and ACPI layer is purely done in U-Boot. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy
