On 10/15/14 17:17, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 03:46:39PM +0100, Darren Hart wrote: >> Mark, what would you propose we do differently to enable this driver to >> be firmware-type agnostic? > > For this particular driver, all I'm asking for is that the > "used-by-rtas" property is not moved over from of_find_property to > device_get_property. It is irrelevant for all ACPI systems. Evidently my > comment was unclear; I apologise for that. So my objection here is that by keeping the of_* terms in the driver we are required to include of, although it does safely convert to returning NULL if !CONFIG_OF I suppose. > We have status = "disabled" as a less specific mechanism for telling the > OS to ignore a node in DT. I was under the impression that ACPI already > had a mechanism for marking devices to be ignored, but perhaps I am > mistaken. That is correct, in ACPI this would be properly implemented with the _STA reserved named method. In which case it wouldn't enumerate. > > The concerns I mentioned at the end of my original reply were of a more > general nature than this particular device description. > > Thanks, > Mark. > -- Darren Hart 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
