On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 09:41:16AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 07/08/2024 18:56, Yunhong Jiang wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 07:57:43AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 07/08/2024 00:12, Yunhong Jiang wrote: > >>> Add the binding to use the ACPI wakeup mailbox mechanism to bringup APs. > >> > >> We do not have bindings for ACPI. I think in the past it was mentioned > >> pretty clear - we do not care what ACPI has in the wild. > > > > Thank you for review. > > Can you please give a bit more information on "do not have bindings for ACPI"? > > We don't put the ACPI table into the device tree, but reuse some existing ACPI > > mailbox mechanism. Is this acceptable for you? > > I understood that rationale behind this patch is "ACPI" thus that reply. > This one sentence in commit msg is not helping. Entire binding > description speaks about ACPI, so yeah - I don't care what ACPI does. > Provide proper explanation/description of firmware or hardware, then > sure. But the patch saying ACPI is doing something, so bindings will be > doing the same is for me NAK. Whatever ACPI is doing is never a reason > alone to do the same in Devicetree. Thank you for the explanation. I will make the description as ACPI independent. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > >
