On 08/01/2013 05:18 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 17:26 -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote: >> Alternatively you may be of the belief that it is impossible to get >> rid of the board specific code. But x86 doesn't have any of it, why >> should ARM? > > The reason x86 doesn't have it is because it carries three decades worth > of legacy baggage so that it can still look like a 1980s IBM PC when > necessary. > > There *have* been some x86 platforms which abandon that legacy crap, and > for those we *do* have board-specific code. (Is James still maintaining > Voyager support? It feels very strange to talk about Voyager with it > *not* being the 'legacy crap' in question...) > > We've even seen *recent* attempts to abandon the legacy crap in the > embedded x86 space, which backtracked and added it all back again — in > part because x86 lacked any sane way to describe the hardware if it > wasn't pretending to be a PC. ACPI doesn't cut it, and DT "wasn't > invented here"... > > Unless you want the ARM world to settle on a strategy of "all the world > is an Assabet", I'd be careful what you wish for...
There is some level of belief that ACPI will enable running this years OS on next years h/w. This idea is completely flawed as long as ARM vendors don't design for compatibility, spin the Si for compatibility issues, and have some mechanism to emulate legacy h/w. All the discussions and issues around DT bindings and processes will apply to ACPI bindings as well. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
