On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 11:20:49AM -0600, Al Stone wrote: > So where does this leave us? What I take away from the discussion is this: > a) each use of _DSD device properties in the kernel is to be evaluated on a > case-by-case basis. Therefore, Rafael and/or driver maintainers have the > final say on acceptance in the Linux kernel. Are we talking about pure _DSD here or are we not talking about something definitely ACPI specific? I was under the impression from the thread title that there's something involving inter-node links going on here since I thought it wasn't possible to represent that in _DSD alone. I might be missing something here, I was copied in part way through the thread. > e) Windows and Linux are already diverging in their use of _DSD. I'm concerned we're seeing this outside of just _DSD. > If I didn't, then it seems a mechanism external to the Linux kernel to document > device properties is completely redundant, especially given item (e) -- they > will either be documented in DT, or documented by the driver. And if that's the > case, then the dsd@xxxxxxxxxx mailing list is irrelevant, or what's worse, makes > for duplicated work, and should just go away. > I'm fine with that, if that's what we're saying (it's less for me to do :), but > let's say it explicitly instead of re-hashing it every time _DSD is used. The > above list is nice and simple and personally I'd rather have simple than a full > blown registration process. Like I've said before having some effort to try to pull the ACPI community together so they're talking to each other and trying to come up with best practices seems like a good idea.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
