Hi Arnd, On 09/03/2014 11:09 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 03 September 2014 01:00:23 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> Our intention is specifically not to use "random incompatible bindings" >> in that. We'd rather have a common venue and process for establishing >> new bindings for both DT and _DSD in a compatible way. > > Right, I think everyone is on the same page for the embedded x86 case, > my point was that there is no consensus about that yet among the > parties involved in arm64 servers. However, in the case of MAC devices where you might need to specify just a couple of properties using _DSD, a specific set of discussions has been instigated. As you mentioned, though, this pertains only to certain devices and isn't necessarily true for every Ethernet device. Consequently, while a Juno PoC patch might use a kludge today, that doesn't mean it's a limitation of ACPI, just of certain devices. Jon. -- 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
