On 12/07/2018 11:18, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 09:11:53PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
On 09/07/2018 13:39, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 01:17:56PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:


-  While ACPI provides more standardization, Devicetree is preferred in may 
embedded
-  platforms for its flexibility.
+  While ACPI provides more standardization, Devicetree is preferred in many
+  embedded platforms for its flexibility.

Bit of a pet peeve of mine since ASoC means I'm frequently having to
think about systems that fall off the edge of what ACPI can express and
it's just a miserable experience.

Understood, but I'm going to leave it as is for now. I don't want to get
into a discussion of the reasons Devicetree is preferred. I just want to
acknowledge that both DT and ACPI are supported options.

OK...  part of what I was reacting to there was that the text read to me
like it was making value judgements about the merits of the two (or at
least it's a lot like what people say).  How about either striking this
entirely or something like:

I've dropped it entirely.

g.

_______________________________________________
boot-architecture mailing list
boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture

Reply via email to