On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:34:20PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:29:55PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > Mark, this was added in this cycle; can we please rip that out for now? > > If it's instantiated directly we probably should. > I think that given the larger problem that needs to be addressed here, > and how the us of DSD properties muddies the water, it would be > preferable to remove it until we have some consensus. Can you send a patch with a writeup please? > > I think there's a reasonable chance that any ACPI specs could be written > > in such a way as to allow transparent support in Linux, the main thing > > I'd worry about is naming issues. > I think it's certainly possible to handle this so that drivers don't > largely have to care. I also think there is some massaging the needs to > be done (e.g. tables of names or some indirection for ACPI/DT > differences), and a unified API that tries to completely hide that is > not truly possible. Given how little consumers can assume about what they'll be allowed/able to do on a given system the naming should be about it - if anything else leaks through I'd be a bit worried.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
