On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:45:36AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:27:00PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > [...] > > > > To be frank the concept (and Microsoft _DSD bindings) seems a bit vague > > > and not thoroughly defined and I would question its detection at > > > PCI/ACPI core level, I would hope this can be clarified at ACPI > > > specification level, at least. > > > > I guess that is the way they envision to use _DSD. Instead of having > > single UUID that covers all properties (like what we have with device > > properties) they have one UUID per property "class". I certainly hope we > > don't need to keep extending prp_guids[] array each time they invent > > another "class" of properties. > > It is even worse than that. This is a unilateral/obscure change that > won't be part of ACPI specifications (I guess it was easier to add a > UUID than add this to the ACPI specifications through the AWSG) but it > is still supposed to be applicable to ACPI PCI bindings on any > platforms/arches; this way of adding bindings does not work and it > has to be rectified. I agree. For the existing property "classes" such as the one here I don't think we can do anything. There are systems already with these included in their ACPI tables. I wonder if you have any objections regarding this patch?
