On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:26:07PM -0800, Rajat Jain wrote: > > > > And shouldn't this be an ACPI standard? > > > > > > Probably should or some supplemental doc but not sure how easy these > > > "properties" can be added there to be honest. > > AIUI, the principal comment I have received here is that this property > needs to be documented somewhere. I agree. > > Rafael, do you know if this new property can be added to the ACPI > spec, and if so, how to do so? I'm happy to initiate a process if > someone can point me to, I just hope that publishing a new property to > the ACPI does not have to block this patch. > > The other option I was thinking of was to use the same property name > (say "untrusted-device") for both ACPI and device tree platforms, and > document it in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/pci.txt along > with others. Since there are other properties there that seem to be > used similarly (Mika highlighted some below), perhaps that is an > acceptable solution? > > I had one last question on the property name itself. I was trying to > understand why a property might have 2 names i.e. "external-facing" > for DT and "ExternalFacingPort" in ACPI? I picked "external-facing" for DT to be consistent with other device tree property names. There doesn't seem to be any CamelCase in device trees [1], so we should probably keep that convention for new properties as well. The internal device_property could use the DT name and the ACPI name can be different. We do something similar with properties "pasid-num-bits" and "dma-can-stall" which are extracted from the IORT table in iort_named_component_init() Thanks, Jean [1] git grep "\<[A-Z][,a-zA-Z0-9]\+ =" -- '*.dts' > Are there any naming > convention requirements that require ACPI and DT property names to be > different? Is "untrusted-device" an acceptable ACPI property name? > > Thanks & Best Regards, > > Rajat
