On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 04:30:18PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 05/10/16 12:41, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:22:15AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > [ +MarkR, MarkB, Rob, Al - I suspect they may want to have a say] > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 01:45:33AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > > > I've been working awhile with my collegue Mika Westerberg to bring > > > > firmware graph support to ACPI based systems. In practice the > > > > functionality achieved by these patches is very similar to what the Device > > > > tree provides: the port and the endpoint concept are being employed. The > > > > patches make use of the _DSD property and data extensions to achieve this. > > > > The fwnode interface is extended by graph functionality; this way graph > > > > information originating from both OF and ACPI may be accessed using the > > > > same interface. > > > > > > There is an ongoing effort to avoid wholesale import of DT bindings > > > into ACPI, I am not a V4L2 expert but it seems to me that with patches > > > like the one you have submitted we are getting closer and closer to > > > achieving it instead of avoiding it. > > > > The whole purpose of PRP0001 ID is to allow DT bindings to be reused in > > ACPI systems, so that the drivers can just call device_property_* and > > get the properties regardless of the underlying firmware interface. > > > > Does this also mean if there's some new bindings added to DT which ACPI > specification still lacks, then instead of enhancing ACPI specification > adding that to it, we can take a shortcut method of PRP0001 and > completely ignore ACPI. People are trying to do that as it's simple and > faster. No and we are not ignoring ACPI either with this patch series. > And yes this has been raised multiple times in past, but worth raising > every-time we head in that direction. And it's increasing day-by-day > which is alarming. > > Even though you may say no to that, it absolutely prevents no one > to do so unless we control what bindings can be support using DSD. So how you propose we deal with this? Add it to the ACPI spec? -- 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
