On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 06:32:29PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 04:06:41PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:41:29PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:22:15AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 01:45:33AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > Are you saying that's not wanted? > > > > Not wholesale DT bindings import into ACPI, just no way. > > Of course not all DT bindings. Only those that do not have a native ACPI > representation. ... yet. For self-contained devices, this isn't much of a concern, but inter-device relationships are the sort of thing ACPI *needs* to know about, and define a model for. By trying to bodge this into _DSD, we're making matters worse by both delaying the inevitable and creating a tonne of technical debt that we have to deal with forever. By copying DT, but changing a few things, we're in effect creating a new ill-defined Linux-specific standard. If we're going to create a new standard, we should go through the ASWG, and make an actual standard. If we're not going to create a new standard, we should use DT directly, rather than trying to force DT into ACPI. Thanks, Mark. -- 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
