On 06/10/16 16:23, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 03:15:36PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
The point here is that some things just don't conflict with
ACPI-defined HW control even potentially and they can be handled with
the help of _DSD properties just fine. Thus, there are no technical
obstacles to do that, at least not in principle.
It feels like we should be aiming for a higher bar with defining things
like this than simple technical possibility - my fear is that we end up
with a mess down the line with people being far too gung ho about
defining new bindings without trying to work on standards. Perhaps I'm
just worrying too much here but I'm not sure there's enough
communication going on. The private nature of ACPI standardization
discussion doesn't help here of course.
+1
I too expressed similar concern, as you say may be that's just too much
over thinking. Or not, because every-time we think ARM vendors should
not do something stupid like this, they end up doing exactly same thing
in no time :))
--
Regards,
Sudeep
--
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
