czw., 28 lip 2022 o 22:18 Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > > The 'label' thing is actually one of the things that I'm seriously > > considering skipping parsing if this is an ACPI system, simply because > > best practices are different today than they were when the OF bindings > > were created. > > Agreed. We want the ACPI binding to learn from what has worked and not > worked in DT. We should clean up some of the historical mess. And > enforce things we don't in DT simply because there is too much > history. > > So a straight one to one conversion is not going to happen. I understand your standpoint - there is a long history, possible clean-ups, backward compatibility considerations, etc. that should not be zero-day baggage of ACPI. Otoh, we don't need to be worried about the ACPI binding too much now - as agreed it was removed from this series, beginning from v2. IMO it may be better to return to that once the ACPI Spec is updated with the MDIOSerialBus and the patches are resubmitted on whatever shape of the DSA subsystem is established within the next weeks/months from now. In v1 we discussed also the resubmission of the non-ACPI-related patches, which would pave the way to dropping the explicit OF_ dependency in the DSA and moving to a generic hardware description kernel API - without any functional change. Modifying DT bindings and clean-ups could be done on top this patchset as well. Of course, it is the subsystems' Maintainers call and I'll adjust accordingly - if you wish me to wait and rebase after the 'validation patch' lands in net-next, I'll do that. A side note: I was of course aware that making it for the v5.20 would be extremely hard, but I decided to give it a try anyway - I had to wait for some time, as this series was gated by fate of the eventually abandoned phylink-related changes. Thanks, Marcin
