Hi Gabriel, Thank you for taking the initiative for the U-Boot ACPI support.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > +Bin > > Hi Gabriel, > > On 4 February 2015 at 12:22, Gabriel Huau <cont...@huau-gabriel.fr> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I'm currently thinking on how to integrate the ACPI support in u-boot x86. >> I've investigated the coreboot implementation. My first thought was to port >> all the source code over but looking at the source code in more details it >> doesn't look like an easy option. For example, it involves reading a lot of >> values over PCI to dynamically fill the tables, and integration a lot of SoC >> specific headers (IRQ definition, GPIO, ...). > > That doesn't sound nice. If we choose to implement generating ACPI tables by U-Boot, we have to do that unfortunately. We may port coreboot stuff and fix anything that is not good. >> >> Therefore, as a first implementation I was thinking about the following: >> - booting a board with the Intel UEFI + Linux >> - extracting all the ACPI tables (/sys/firmware/acpi/ or acpixtract) >> - disassembling the binaries tables via iasl to allow people to modify >> them >> - integrating these files into u-boot in board specific folder (for >> example: board/intel/minnowmax/acpi/*) >> - generating one blob per table using iasl during build time which >> requires iasl tool to be installed if we have the CONFIG_ACPI >> - writing at the RSDP location all the ACPI tables previously exported >> >> With this flow, the integration would be quite simple. Also this allows the >> tables to be modified easily when there is a new release or to add some new >> devices to the DSDT. >> >> What are your thoughts about that? >> >> Feel free to provide some feedback on this implementation. > > It seems reasonable to me. Bin may have some comments so I copied him. > We have been using the device tree to statically define the hardware, > so there is some duplication here. I would like to avoid actually > using ACPI in U-Boot (device tree seems to do everything we need in a > boot loader), but generating it make sense, and so long as it is > source code, we can change it, as you say. > This sounds a fast way to enable ACPI support. For the first implementation, I think it's enough. Let's see how it looks like. Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
