Hi Le mer. 1 déc. 2021 à 18:11, Tom Rini <[email protected]> a écrit :
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 05:49:54PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > From: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > > Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 09:02:38 -0700 > > > > > > Some ARM boards are using ACPI now. It seems that U-Boot should support > > > this method. Add ARM to the list of archs which can generate ACPI > tables. > > > > Can you explain why you think U-Boot should care? > > > > Because I think promoting ACPI as a viable firmware interface for the > > type of boards supported by U-Boot would be a serious mistake... > > Given the large overlap of SoCs that support both SystemReady IR and > SystemReady ES, I asked Simon how hard it would be to pass ACPI tables, > instead of DTB. Are there going to be some challenges to be able to get > ES certified under U-Boot? Certainly. But I'm not convinced that > U-Boot is just a wrong-fit for the ES case when part of the whole point > of these certifications is that it doesn't matter what's implementing > it, it's a standard. > looks like an exciting endeavor ! If we factor in safety certification, there are probably more chances to achieve this with U-Boot that EDK2. That said, AML implementation in U-Boot, which may end up being necessary, need special care. > > -- > Tom > -- François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Business Development* T: +33.67221.6485 [email protected] | Skype: ffozog
