On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 01:08:24PM +0000, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > Yes, using device tree would be good, but now you have created something > that is device-tree-specific and not all the world is device tree :( AFAICT the idiomatic thing for ACPI would be platform quirks based on DMI information. Yay ACPI. If the system is more Linux targetted then you can use _DSD properties to store DT properties, these can then be parsed out in a firmware interface neutral way via the fwnode API. I'm not sure there's any avoiding dealing with firmware interface specifics at some point if we need platform description. > Also, many devices are finally moving out to non-device-tree busses, > like PCI and USB, so how would you handle them in this type of scheme? DT does have bindings for devices on discoverable buses like PCI - I think the original thing was for vendors cheaping out on EEPROMs though it's also useful when things are soldered down in embedded systems.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
