On 2013-10-23 8:13, Anderson, Brandon wrote: > Is the proposed ASL format appropriate? I recognize that the ASL It is ok for me. it represents the device topology very clear also. > definitions for these devices must be standardized across all ARM ACPI > platform definitions if we want the software to work consistently, > so this is an important aspect to agree upon. > > How about contrasting it with an alternative where each device has _HID > of "AMBA0000" and there's no top-level 'Device (AMBA)'? This would mean > that all the devices would be labeled by ACPI subsystem as "AMBA0000:NN" > instead of "device:NN". However, with this solution there would be no easy > way to define a default clock. See example below. I think a top-level 'Device (AMBA)' is needed. there is a good example for PCI host bridge, its HID is PNP0A08 or PNP0A03, and there are a top level device for PCI host bridge and child devices with different HIDs. if there's no top-level 'Device (AMBA)', AMBA0000:NN will confuse people if there are multi AMBAs in the system, people will think that AMBA0000:01 is the second AMBA bus in the system but not some devices under AMBA bus. Thanks Hanjun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
