On 10/06/2016 02:14 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > 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. My intent was pure _DSD. I have to wonder if inter-node links shouldn't be handled more directly in ASL; that may be harder than using device properties, but it might be the right long term solution. >> e) Windows and Linux are already diverging in their use of _DSD. > > I'm concerned we're seeing this outside of just _DSD. Well, since I have not been appointed Emperor, I'm not sure it can be prevented. >> 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. > I agree it seems like a good idea. As a practical matter, however, if it is just going to be ignored, there's no real point, is there? That also begs the question, though: if the idea is to re-use DT bindings as is, why not just use DT directly and not bother with ACPI? Wouldn't that be easier on everyone? If arm64 can use ACPI *or* DT, surely any other architecture can. -- ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx ----------------------------------- -- 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
