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? > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../devicetree/bindings/x86/wakeup.yaml | 41 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/x86/wakeup.yaml > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/x86/wakeup.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/x86/wakeup.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..8af40dcdb592 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/x86/wakeup.yaml > > @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > > +%YAML 1.2 > > + > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/x86/wakeup.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > This was absolutely never tested and does not look like proper bindings > file. This just does not work. Go to example-schema and use it as template. > > NAK > > Best regards, > Krzysztof Oops, I used the example-schema but apparently did something wrong. Will have a check. --jyh >
