On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 01:44:20 PM Mark Rutland wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:00:39PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 02:19:22PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > > >> I don't need a DT, I need that my existing firmware (in this case BIOS) > > >> can describe camera device(s) and the OS can take advantage of this, > > >> preferably with minimal changes to the drivers. > > > > > >> Currently there is no way in ACPI specification to do that. > > > > > > That's not exactly true - the way Windows handles audio devices (which > > > follow a similar pattern) is to register the control interfaces of the > > > individual components of the system using existing bindings and then > > > bind them together with a driver that matches the board level > > > identification. This isn't super awesome but it's definitely a thing > > > you can do. > > ... so at least one OS *already* has an OS-specific bodge around what is a > clear ACPI deficiency... > > > But that would mean writing new Linux code to support hardware that > > already is supported by the Linux kernel. > > > > That would be a bit like saying "We have a driver for this, but you > > are not allowed to use it, because your platform is not a DT one". > > That doesn't sound good to me, honestly. > > ... and none of us like any of the proposed OS-specific bodges. I'm taking this as your personal opinion. > So why is no-one trying to solve the issue? Why has this not been raised as an > issue to be solved by the ACPI spec? How exactly do you think it could be solved there? Thanks, Rafael -- 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
