Not being better ACPI so much as having busses that are reconfigurable on typical PCs.
With ACPI the configuration is packaged with the hardware, with device tree it's not. ACPI might be worse for certain reasons but it is more usable in practice.
> Not being better ACPI so much as having busses that are reconfigurable on typical PCs.
But there's tons of buses that aren't reconfigurable on PCs. You just don't generally see it because it's papered over with ACPI. But all the same I2C/SPI and random devices sitting off the major system management devices still exist on PCs.
> With ACPI the configuration is packaged with the hardware, with device tree it's not.
Eh, I've seen both options with both models. And ACPI being less declarative means that kernels have to ship larger patch tables to fix broken ACPI code. With device tree, a declarative approach means the drivers are free to fix issues in whatever way that kernel thinks is best.
> ACPI might be worse for certain reasons but it is more usable in practice.
I think it's easier to ship an MVP and forget about it than device tree, but device tree is easier to maintain over a long period.
>device tree is easier to maintain over a long period.
I don't really disagree, but for the most part all I've ever been able to buy are ARM boards with horrible support. If people aren't going to take up DT then it might be wise to find some middle ground.
With ACPI the configuration is packaged with the hardware, with device tree it's not. ACPI might be worse for certain reasons but it is more usable in practice.