On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 08:16:30PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Monday 05 January 2015 13:13:02 Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

quoted

since passing no DT tables to OS but
acpi=force is missing is a corner case, we can do a follow up patch to
fix that, does it make sense?

Not entirely. Why would no dtb and no acpi=force be a corner case? I
thought this should be the default when only ACPI tables are passed, no
need for an additional acpi=force argument.

We don't really support the case of only ACPI tables for now. The expectation
is that you always have working DT support, at least for the next few years
as ACPI features are ramping up, and without acpi=force it should not try
to use ACPI at all.

So if both DT and ACPI are present, just use DT unless acpi=force is
passed. So far I think we agree but what I want to avoid is always
mandating acpi=force even when the DT tables are missing (in the long
run).

Now, what's preventing a vendor firmware from providing only ACPI
tables? Do we enforce it in some way (arm-acpi.txt, kernel warning etc.)
that both DT and ACPI are supported, or at least that dts files are
merged in the kernel first?

-- 
Catalin