On 03/29/17 19:30, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 29/03/17 18:15, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 03/29/17 19:01, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 29/03/17 17:40, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 03/29/17 18:07, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 29 March 2017 at 17:03, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 03/29/17 18:02, Ard Bies
On 03/29/17 19:44, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 06:55:26PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 03/29/17 18:17, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 29 March 2017 at 17:09, Jon Masters wrote:
Thanks Laszlo. A quick note from me that regardless of this
discussion I will be p
On 03/29/17 19:30, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 29 March 2017 at 18:23, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 03/29/17 19:07, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 29 March 2017 at 18:01, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 29/03/17 17:40, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> [...]
> On the technical side:
>
> - I think a dynamic
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 06:55:26PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 03/29/17 18:17, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On 29 March 2017 at 17:09, Jon Masters wrote:
> >> Thanks Laszlo. A quick note from me that regardless of this
> >> discussion I will be pushing to ensure the version Red Hat ships
> >
On 29 March 2017 at 18:23, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 03/29/17 19:07, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 29 March 2017 at 18:01, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 29/03/17 17:40, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
[...]
On the technical side:
- I think a dynamic boolean PCD would be superior, if that is possible
On 03/29/17 19:07, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 29 March 2017 at 18:01, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 29/03/17 17:40, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> On 03/29/17 18:07, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 29 March 2017 at 17:03, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 03/29/17 18:02, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 29 March 20
On 29 March 2017 at 17:40, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 03/29/17 18:07, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 29 March 2017 at 17:03, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> On 03/29/17 18:02, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 29 March 2017 at 17:00, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
[..]
> NACK
>
OK, fair enough. How do you
On 03/29/17 19:01, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 29/03/17 17:40, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 03/29/17 18:07, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 29 March 2017 at 17:03, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 03/29/17 18:02, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 29 March 2017 at 17:00, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 03/29/17 17:1
On 29 March 2017 at 18:01, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 29/03/17 17:40, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 03/29/17 18:07, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 29 March 2017 at 17:03, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 03/29/17 18:02, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 29 March 2017 at 17:00, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 03/2
On 03/29/17 18:16, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 29/03/17 17:03, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 03/29/17 18:02, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 29 March 2017 at 17:00, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 03/29/17 17:19, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> In general, we should not present two separate (and inevitably differen
On 03/29/17 18:17, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 29 March 2017 at 17:09, Jon Masters wrote:
>> Thanks Laszlo. A quick note from me that regardless of this discussion I
>> will be pushing to ensure the version Red Hat ships makes ACPI the default
>> with it being extremely painful to use DT. It is t
On 03/29/17 18:07, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 29 March 2017 at 17:03, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 03/29/17 18:02, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 29 March 2017 at 17:00, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 03/29/17 17:19, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> In general, we should not present two separate (and inevitab
On 29 March 2017 at 17:09, Jon Masters wrote:
> Thanks Laszlo. A quick note from me that regardless of this discussion I will
> be pushing to ensure the version Red Hat ships makes ACPI the default with it
> being extremely painful to use DT. It is time the ecosystem got with the
> program we a
On 29 March 2017 at 17:03, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 03/29/17 18:02, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 29 March 2017 at 17:00, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> On 03/29/17 17:19, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
In general, we should not present two separate (and inevitably different)
hardware descriptions to the
On 03/29/17 18:02, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 29 March 2017 at 17:00, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 03/29/17 17:19, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> In general, we should not present two separate (and inevitably different)
>>> hardware descriptions to the OS, in the form of ACPI tables and a device
>>> tree
On 29 March 2017 at 17:00, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 03/29/17 17:19, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> In general, we should not present two separate (and inevitably different)
>> hardware descriptions to the OS, in the form of ACPI tables and a device
>> tree blob. For this reason, we recently added the lo
On 03/29/17 17:19, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> In general, we should not present two separate (and inevitably different)
> hardware descriptions to the OS, in the form of ACPI tables and a device
> tree blob. For this reason, we recently added the logic to ArmVirtQemu to
> only expose the ACPI 2.0 entr
In general, we should not present two separate (and inevitably different)
hardware descriptions to the OS, in the form of ACPI tables and a device
tree blob. For this reason, we recently added the logic to ArmVirtQemu to
only expose the ACPI 2.0 entry point if no DT binary is being passed, and
vice
18 matches
Mail list logo
