On 12/07/2018 11:18, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:11:53PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
On 09/07/2018 13:39, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:17:56PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
- While ACPI provides more standardization, Devicetree is preferred in may
embedded
- platforms for its flexibility.
+ While ACPI provides more standardization, Devicetree is preferred in many
+ embedded platforms for its flexibility.
Bit of a pet peeve of mine since ASoC means I'm frequently having to
think about systems that fall off the edge of what ACPI can express and
it's just a miserable experience.
Understood, but I'm going to leave it as is for now. I don't want to get
into a discussion of the reasons Devicetree is preferred. I just want to
acknowledge that both DT and ACPI are supported options.
OK... part of what I was reacting to there was that the text read to me
like it was making value judgements about the merits of the two (or at
least it's a lot like what people say). How about either striking this
entirely or something like:
I've dropped it entirely.
g.
_______________________________________________
boot-architecture mailing list
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
