On Wednesday 16 March 2016 14:07:13 Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Arnd. > > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 09:14:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> I am not debating on your AML call recommendation, it sounds like > >> a good idea however BIOS is already released hence its bit late to > >> add AML methods for this. I am seeking guidance on what can be > >> done in the given situation. I thought platform driver is one > >> option to get this feature enabled in kernel. > > > This is where we really need the ACPI maintainers to explain the > > general policy for dealing with firmware updates. > > > > I would assume that adding the feature in a later firmware version > > is a compatible change, and the feature is non-essential (the > > device will work fine with the generic SATA driver, except > > the LEDs don't blink), so it's not a big deal, it's just what > > you get for having the firmware shipped before the driver is > > reviewed (don't do that). > > So, if it were x86, I'd commit the custom driver without thinking too > much as ata drivers have always been working around bios issues (there > often wasn't any other recourse). If the hardware is already out > there and it's not too easy to roll out bios updates, from libata > side, I'm okay with having a custom driver to work around that. What > do you think? It's your call in the end. My main objection is to the fact that I have suggested a clean implementation for the normal DT based path that also fixes existing platforms that used to work in the past and were broken by the (long-ago) move from drivers/ide to drivers/ata, Brijesh has not implemented that but has instead continued pushing the hack for the ACPI mode that is still experimental on ARM64. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
