On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:42:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > The way I recall the discussion, most people were on one extreme > side of the discussion or the other: > a) We should use _DSD for ARM64 servers to maximize code reuse with > DT-enabled drivers, work around the slow UEFI standardization process, > remain in control of the actual bindings, and avoid the need for > endless per-ID platform-data definitions in drivers. > b) We should never use _DSD at all, since doing that would have no > advantage over using DT directly, and we should force every device > manufacturer to specify their bindings in an official ACPI document > to prevent random incompatible bindings from being established. > Any device that shows up in servers should not need arbitrary detailed > properties anyway, as the details are supposed to be hidden in AML. > I can understand the reasons for both approaches, and I find it hard > to say either one is invalid. However, the worst possible outcome in > my opinion would be having to support a mix of the two. Right, and the x86 embedded folks are going full steam ahead with _DSD regardless so it seems there will be some systems out there using it even if they're not ARM servers.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
