On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > 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?
Yes the patch in discussion is for arm64. So my comments above are in context to arm64. >> 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. AFAIK upstream arm64 u-boot doesn't support ACPI boot method for armv8/arm64 yet. Regards, Bhupesh
