On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 01:07:36PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 01:37:37PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:13:56AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > I have strong objections to the way these bindings have been forced upon > > > everybody; if that's the way *generic* ACPI bindings are specified I > > > wonder why there still exists an ACPI specification and related working > > > group. > > > > > > I personally (but that's Bjorn and Rafael choice) think that this is > > > not a change that belongs in PCI core, ACPI bindings are ill-defined > > > and device tree bindings are non-existing. > > > > Any idea where should I put it then? These systems are already out there > > and we need to support them one way or another. > > I suppose those are all Thunderbolt, so could be handled by the > existing ->is_thunderbolt bit? > > It was said in this thread that ->is_external is more generic in > that it could also be used on PCIe slots, however that use case > doesn't appear to lend itself to the "plug in while laptop owner > is getting coffee" attack. To access PCIe slots on a server you > normally need access to a data center. On a desktop, you usually > have to open the case, by which time the coffee may already have > been fetched. So frankly the binding seems a bit over-engineered > to me and yet another thing that BIOS writers may get wrong. I would not say it should include PCIe slots but there are other cables that carry PCIe and I was thinking we could make it to support those as well. I have no problem using is_thunderbolt here, though if we don't want to support non-Thunderbolt external devices this way. However, the question here is more that where I should put the _DSD parsing code if it is not suitable to be placed inside PCI/ACPI core as I've done in this patch? ;-)
