On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:44:41AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Sun, 2015-10-18 at 20:53 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > Do you mean firmware rather than bus here? I think that's the confusion > > I have... > Certainly, if it literally is adding of_* calls then that would seem to > be gratuitously firmware-specific. Nothing should be using those these > days; any new code should be using the generic device property APIs > (except in special cases). It's not entirely clear to me that we should be moving to fwnode_ wholesale yet - the last advice was to hold off for a little while which makes sense given that the ACPI community still doesn't seem to have worked out what it wants to do here and how. The x86 embedded people are all gung ho but it's less clear that anyone else wants to use _DSD in quite the same way (I know of some efforts to use _DSD separately to the DT compatibility stuff) and there are some vendors who definitely do have completely different binding schemes for ACPI and DT and therefore specifically care which is in use. It would really help if ACPI could get their binding review process in place, and if we do want to actually start converting everything to fwnode_ we need to start communicating that actively since otherwise people can't really be expected to know.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
