On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Bin Meng wrote:
>>>
>>> >I believe that ACPI systems generally expect EFI runtime services to
>>> >be present as well. I know ours does.
>>
>> This is not true. ACPI does not require any EFI runtime services.
>
>
> Please re-read my sentence. I
Bin Meng wrote:
>I believe that ACPI systems generally expect EFI runtime services to
>be present as well. I know ours does.
This is not true. ACPI does not require any EFI runtime services.
Please re-read my sentence. I said "generally expect".
If you guys want to spend the man-years neces
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>
>> I think that takes too narrow of a view. If silicon is sold, someone
>> will put it somewhere. And if there's firmware that works, and the
>> buyer can modify to suit their design, they'll
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>
> I think that takes too narrow of a view. If silicon is sold, someone
> will put it somewhere. And if there's firmware that works, and the
> buyer can modify to suit their design, they'll use it.
I believe that ACPI systems generally expect EFI
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 08:48:55PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Tom Rini wrote:
> >Well, I wouldn't phrase it quite like that. I would ask, do we want to
> >go down this path? How far down would we want to go, if so?
>
> ACPI is pretty complicated, more so than DT. UEFI is also open
> source. I
Tom Rini wrote:
Well, I wouldn't phrase it quite like that. I would ask, do we want to
go down this path? How far down would we want to go, if so?
ACPI is pretty complicated, more so than DT. UEFI is also open source.
I think you need to find a very compelling reason to reinvent the wheel.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Is there any activity to bring ACPI to other than x86 arch? If not, do
>> we have a plan to do so?
>
> Not that I know of, sorry.
Note that ACPI for ARM exists on Linux already, and as far as I know,
all ARM ACPI systems use UEFI, not U-Boot.
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:33:14PM +, york sun wrote:
> On 10/05/2016 04:15 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>> Is there any activity to bring ACPI to other than x86 arch? If not, do
> >>> we have a plan to do so?
> >>
> >> Not that I know of, sor
On 10/05/2016 07:47 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi York,
>
> On 4 October 2016 at 10:38, york sun wrote:
>> Simon and Bin,
>>
>> Is there any activity to bring ACPI to other than x86 arch? If not, do
>> we have a plan to do so?
>
> Not that I know of, sorry.
Simon and Bin,
Thanks for replying.
Yor
On 10/05/2016 04:15 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Is there any activity to bring ACPI to other than x86 arch? If not, do
>>> we have a plan to do so?
>>
>> Not that I know of, sorry.
>
> Note that ACPI for ARM exists on Linux already, and as far as
Hi York,
On 4 October 2016 at 10:38, york sun wrote:
> Simon and Bin,
>
> Is there any activity to bring ACPI to other than x86 arch? If not, do
> we have a plan to do so?
Not that I know of, sorry.
Regards,
Simon
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.
Hi York,
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:38 AM, york sun wrote:
> Simon and Bin,
>
> Is there any activity to bring ACPI to other than x86 arch? If not, do
> we have a plan to do so?
>
No plan to do ACPI on ARM yet.
Regards,
Bin
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Bo
Simon and Bin,
Is there any activity to bring ACPI to other than x86 arch? If not, do
we have a plan to do so?
York
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
13 matches
Mail list logo
