Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:12:13 +0000 From: Andrew Turner <andrew@fubar.geek.nz> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: interrupt framework Message-ID: <20150122101213.5b0f6aea@bender.lan> In-Reply-To: <74044D4B-A841-48E0-88CD-73B659454B86@bsdimp.com> References: <CAFHCsPX5kG_v-F-cjpyMQsT_b386eok=mqWW0%2BEUb_4-_1Otnw@mail.gmail.com> <54BA9888.1020303@freebsd.org> <CAFHCsPX-X-OG4jGLbhdH1BVtqorJKUeaVbzabX-%2BUfEM2fhD6A@mail.gmail.com> <54BD3F86.3010901@freebsd.org> <CAFHCsPUqq-o4z9c5_8SYxcefUiFvGADB5FnB5NiQuu6XBrdyng@mail.gmail.com> <54BD9794.4080204@freebsd.org> <CAFHCsPXLvwJ_5FJaeoKSHjbgmtwzSXFtuPr1h=bO1g9tghyDog@mail.gmail.com> <54BE7E6D.6060800@freebsd.org> <FB774FC2-CDF0-4E3F-95B8-59755EA54CCC@bsdimp.com> <20150121180916.110fc8ad@bender.lan> <74044D4B-A841-48E0-88CD-73B659454B86@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:32:47 -0700 Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > On Jan 21, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Andrew Turner <andrew@fubar.geek.nz> > > wrote: > >=20 > > On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:50:14 -0700 > > Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > >> =E2=80=9Cusually=E2=80=9D? I thought it was always 100%: We=E2=80=99re= wither using FDT or > >> we=E2=80=99re not. Some platforms allow compiling for both (mostly as a > >> transition aid to FDT), but I=E2=80=99m not aware of any that would be= a > >> mix. > >=20 > > There may be a case on arm64 to use both fdt and ACPI. In this case > > it would be used as a transition to add support for ACPI as some > > hardware may require it. >=20 > Speaking of ACPI, will/can arm64 use UEFI? The two seem to be joined > at the hip these days=E2=80=A6 On servers I expect UEFI to be used. For more embedded devices, e.g. phones or tablets, the boot environment will be less standardised. Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150122101213.5b0f6aea>