Thank you for confirming the original proposal for the ASL format , Hanjun. I will refine this patchset, implement the clock definition, and then resubmit to the list for review. Brandon -----Original Message----- From: Hanjun Guo [mailto:hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 2:38 AM To: Anderson, Brandon; linaro-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: lenb@xxxxxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxx; naresh.bhat@xxxxxxxxxx; graeme.gregory@xxxxxxxxxx; Suthikulpanit, Suravee Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] ACPI: ARM AMBA bus connector resource 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 ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
