On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:35:49AM +0200, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:43:01 +0200 > , Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > This shouldn't be that controversial. There will be things that only make > sense for DT or only ACPI. Allowing the property to be processed when > the other interface is being used may tempt firmware authors to use the > property because it just happens to have a side effect that looks right > to them. > > I don't see any problem with factoring out those bits into a function > that is only called (or built) when the associated firmware interface is > used. In these situations, the driver isn't 100% generic, so having > small per-firmware hooks is absolutely okay and not a burden to > maintain. Hrm... well, I suppose this isn't a hill I want to die on. I can disagree and commit here :-) -- 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
