Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 03:02:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 02:56:26PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Where is this discussion?

> My part of it has pretty much been in-person discussion with Grant 
> Likely, but there was some on ksummit-discuss last month.

Oh, I saw some of the ksummit-discuss traffic but didn't register it as
a serious proposal to do something.

> > Right, but there's lots of bolierplate code with this stuff anyway and
> > it's not fundamentally hard.  Last time I looked at ACPI it had a rather
> > different model for how all this stuff would work than DT did which
> > isn't terribly helpful here.

> ACPI 5 lets devices expose their GPIO resources directly, so in some 
> cases a driver will just be able to request that and handle things as it 

Assuming the naming standard is the same and so on...  my understanding
was that it's difficult to get any sort of standardisation on ACPI
bindings for device drivers.

> would in ftd. But the more traditional ACPI method is to use ACPI 
> notifications, and those happen in process context. It seems unlikely 
> that everyone's going to get it right unless there's existing in-kernel 
> infrastructure for handling this.

Oh dear, that sounds awesome.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature