On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:16:22PM +0000, Jon Masters wrote:

On 01/29/2015 06:11 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

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 certain Linux distro representative
stating that the kernel-firmware interface we discuss here only matters
for those planning to follow upstream. Certain Linux distros will play
by other rules.

Oh, don't take it that way - I just mean that if someone needs a
different ACPI always on, they can do that separately.

And that's exactly what I'm trying to get consensus on. ACPI always on
together with DT always on, subject to config options being enabled (not
patching). It's up to firmware (and vendor) to provide only ACPI tables
to the kernel if not interested in DT. In such case I don't want to see
additional kernel parameters. But if the firmware provides both, then it
is a user choice which one to use, defaulting to DT.

-- 
Catalin