On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 12:15 +0100, James Addison wrote:
> I'd like to understand what is the approach that provides the most
> compatibility and free software support with the fewest moving parts.
> To me, the reliability and human-time cost savings from simpler, more
> open and straightforward
On 2023.05.08 21:02, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
Well devicetree is part of open firmware aka IEEE-1275, from 1994.
ACPI is from 1996.
Interesting; TIL.
I guess I'm probably not the only person who thought DT was something
that was only cooked recently by Linux kernel maintainers, since that's
On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 06:16:52PM +0100, Pete Batard wrote:
> Plus, UEFI has an official standard, and standards are (for the most part) a
> good thing.
IEEE-1275 is a standard too.
> However, with what I have mentioned initially and the weight that Microsoft
> has, the only way you're going to
Well, I guess at this stage, and to help provide some more context about
the DT vs ACPI conundrum, I'm going to stop tiptoeing around the literal
elephant in the room, but not without first adding a preliminary notice
that I wasn't privy to whatever discussions occurred with regards to the
On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 12:52, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2023.05.04 14:16, James Addison wrote:
> > Yep, and for those situations, that's a point in favour of the third
> > "System Table Selection" value that I failed to mention:
> > "ACPI+Devicetree".
>
> Indeed, the firmware provides that that
5 matches
Mail list logo
