On 3 August 2018 at 11:23, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 3 August 2018 at 10:21, Hongbo Zhang <hongbo.zh...@linaro.org> wrote: >> The 'sbsa' machine won't consume QEMU generated ACPI, so it won't >> touch or add new ACPI tables. >> >> UEFI relies on its ACPI to load OS, but currently it still needs DT >> from QEMU to pass some info, one example is CPU number. >> >> So, the 'sbsa' code implementation should be like this: >> A separate file, no ACPI codes, a little necessary DT codes. >> >> "Necessary DT codes" doesn't include so many peripheral devices nodes, >> so the code overlap with virt won't be so much (contrary to sbsa.c >> with all the DT codes), then no need to separate the common part to a >> third file, and virt.c can be untouched or only a minor change with >> few lines. > > Would the real hardware you are trying to be an example > for use DT for this? It seems a bit unlikely to me. >
Yes, as a matter of fact. There is work underway both on the EDK2 and the ARM-TF side to rely less on static descriptions, and more on DT to instantiate drivers and ACPI tables at runtime rather than at build time.
