On 30 January 2015 at 14:48, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, rather than a "I-created-an-empty-dtb" property, I would
>> actually say something like "dtb-contains-no-hardware-description".
>
>
> Why do we need a property for this? Wouldn't the absence of a hardware
> desc
Catalin Marinas wrote:
Anyway, rather than a "I-created-an-empty-dtb" property, I would
actually say something like "dtb-contains-no-hardware-description".
Why do we need a property for this? Wouldn't the absence of a hardware
description be the best way to see if the dtb contains no hardware
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 06:20:06PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 29 January 2015 at 15:19, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:18:44PM +, Timur Tabi wrote:
> >> On 01/28/2015 12:14 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> >> >So it looks like there's a whole conversation about thi
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:16:22PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 01/29/2015 06:11 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> > Sorry Jon but statements like this make me wonder whether we should
> > simply let the whole ARM ACPI be an out of tree distro business. We
> > spend a long time discussing OS-agnost
On 01/29/2015 06:11 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Sorry Jon but statements like this make me wonder whether we should
> simply let the whole ARM ACPI be an out of tree distro business. We
> spend a long time discussing OS-agnostic firmware implementation,
> planning mini-summits, just to get certai
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 06:44:36PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 01/29/2015 01:34 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> > On 01/29/2015 12:28 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> The UEFI stub in the kernel uses the DTB file format (FDT) to pass
> >> information about the UEFI memory map and system table to the kerne
On 01/29/2015 01:34 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On 01/29/2015 12:28 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> The UEFI stub in the kernel uses the DTB file format (FDT) to pass
>> information about the UEFI memory map and system table to the kernel.
>> It does so even if there is no device tree that describes the
>
On 01/29/2015 12:28 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
The UEFI stub in the kernel uses the DTB file format (FDT) to pass
information about the UEFI memory map and system table to the kernel.
It does so even if there is no device tree that describes the
platform. In this case, the file only contains a /ch
On 29 January 2015 at 18:21, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On 01/29/2015 12:20 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>
>> If we are going with this solution, we should also mandate that an
>> ACPI enabled firmware should not supply a non-DT DTB
>
>
> What is a non-DT DTB? I thought the "DT" in "DTB" stood for device
On 01/29/2015 12:20 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
If we are going with this solution, we should also mandate that an
ACPI enabled firmware should not supply a non-DT DTB
What is a non-DT DTB? I thought the "DT" in "DTB" stood for device tree.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innov
On 29 January 2015 at 15:19, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:18:44PM +, Timur Tabi wrote:
>> On 01/28/2015 12:14 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> >> >So it looks like there's a whole conversation about this already in
>> >> >this thread that I didn't notice. However, reading
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:18:44PM +, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On 01/28/2015 12:14 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> >So it looks like there's a whole conversation about this already in
> >> >this thread that I didn't notice. However, reading through all of it,
> >> >I still don't understand sure why
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> From: Al Stone
>
> Introduce one early parameters "off" and "force" for "acpi", acpi=off
> will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
> enable ACPI on ARM64.
>
> Disable ACPI before early parameters parsed, and enable it
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 05:58:54PM +, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > From: Al Stone
> >
> > Introduce one early parameters "off" and "force" for "acpi", acpi=off
> > will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
> > enable ACPI
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:08:24PM +, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> > What is the reason to assume that DT is preferred over ACPI? I would
> > have thought that if ACPI is present, then it means we're on an ARM64
> > server platform, and therefore i
On 01/28/2015 12:14 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>So it looks like there's a whole conversation about this already in
>this thread that I didn't notice. However, reading through all of it,
>I still don't understand sure why the presence of ACPI tables is
>insufficient to enable ACPI.
Because AC
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> What is the reason to assume that DT is preferred over ACPI? I would
> have thought that if ACPI is present, then it means we're on an ARM64
> server platform, and therefore it should be used. It seems silly to
> require acpi=force on every A
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:10:00PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 07:20:06PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > > How about the patch (just RFC, maybe it is horrible :) ) bel
On 21 January 2015 at 21:46, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:05:33PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On 01/21/2015 10:42 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:29:52PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
>> >> On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> >>> I have
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:05:33PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 01/21/2015 10:42 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:29:52PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> >> On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >>> I have some questions for the ACPI and EFI folk:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Wh
On 01/21/2015 10:42 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:29:52PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> I have some questions for the ACPI and EFI folk:
>>>
>>> 1. When booting with ACPI, are the EFI run-time services required for
>>>a
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 07:20:06PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > How about the patch (just RFC, maybe it is horrible :) ) below:
> > >
> > > When system supporting both DT and ACPI but firmware provid
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:42:43PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:29:52PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > I have some questions for the ACPI and EFI folk:
> > >
> > > 1. When booting with ACPI, are the EFI run-time serv
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:29:52PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > I have some questions for the ACPI and EFI folk:
> >
> > 1. When booting with ACPI, are the EFI run-time services required for
> >anything? If yes, Xen may have a bigger problem
>
On 01/21/2015 10:23 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> I have some questions for the ACPI and EFI folk:
>
> 1. When booting with ACPI, are the EFI run-time services required for
>anything? If yes, Xen may have a bigger problem
Yes. At least for some things. For example, installing an Operating
Sys
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 07:20:06PM +, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > How about the patch (just RFC, maybe it is horrible :) ) below:
> >
> > When system supporting both DT and ACPI but firmware providing
> > no dtb, we can use this linux,uefi-stub-genera
On 21 January 2015 at 00:50, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
>> > > > On 01/19/2
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> > > > On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 19 Jan 201
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:10:32AM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > index 54e39e3..8268c7b 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > @@ -371,6 +371,31 @@ static void __init request_standard
On 2015年01月20日 19:10, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 09:29:14AM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 09:29:14AM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> >>> On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 09:29:14AM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> >>> On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On
On 2015年01月20日 02:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45 +
, Catalin Marinas
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 20
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:52:33PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45 +
> > > , Catalin Marinas
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:59:47PM +, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45 +
> > , Catalin Marinas
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marina
On 01/19/2015 10:13 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45 +
> , Catalin Marinas
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:51:45 +
, Catalin Marinas
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > >> From: Al Stone
> > >>
> > >> Introd
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 02:00:24PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 19 January 2015 at 13:51, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +,
On 19 January 2015 at 13:51, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> >> From: Al Stone
>> >>
>> >> Introduce one early param
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:55:32AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> From: Al Stone
> >>
> >> Introduce one early parameters "off" and "force" for "acpi", acpi=off
> >> will be th
On 19 January 2015 at 11:42, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> From: Al Stone
>>
>> Introduce one early parameters "off" and "force" for "acpi", acpi=off
>> will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
>> enable ACPI on A
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:52PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> From: Al Stone
>
> Introduce one early parameters "off" and "force" for "acpi", acpi=off
> will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
> enable ACPI on ARM64.
>
> Disable ACPI before early parameters parsed, and
On 01/14/2015 09:04 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
From: Al Stone
Introduce one early parameters "off" and "force" for "acpi", acpi=off
will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
enable ACPI on ARM64.
Disable ACPI before early parameters parsed, and enable it to pass
"acpi=force
From: Al Stone
Introduce one early parameters "off" and "force" for "acpi", acpi=off
will be the default behavior for ARM64, so introduce acpi=force to
enable ACPI on ARM64.
Disable ACPI before early parameters parsed, and enable it to pass
"acpi=force" if people want use ACPI on ARM64. This ens
44 matches
Mail list logo
