On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 04:40:36 PM Graeme Gregory wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 01:22:10AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 17 September 2014, Graeme Gregory wrote: > > > It sounds like from the discussions in other threads that ARM64 should > > > be following x86 and re-using DT bindings here. In which case there is > > > not need to submit things to UEFI organisation. > > > > > > What I got a little lost in has there been a formal decision about DT > > > bindings in _DSD? > > > > I think this is a discussion that still needs to happen: either we should > > recommend everyone to use _DSD in favor of the alternatives, or we > > should prohibit the use of _DSD. I have heard arguments both ways, but > > hopefully we can find an easy answer. > > > > This discussion is just not going to happen until people at @redhat.com > and people who have currently announced/released hardware are actually > willing to start talking about it. > > Id love to be able to put my foot down and ban the use of _DSD for > servers but I suspect that will not happen. I'll probably should stay away from this discussion, but I can't resist. :-) Please imagine the situation in which the same IP block is included in an ARM64 SoC and in an x86 SoC that ships with ACPI tables and a _DSD for that device in them. What benefit would be there from disallowing systems based on the ARM64 SoC in question to ship the same _DSD in their ACPI tables? -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
