On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 07:21:35PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:29:55PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > I think there's a reasonable chance that any ACPI specs could be written > > in such a way as to allow transparent support in Linux, the main thing > > I'd worry about is naming issues. > I think that the difference between ACPI and DT firmware models, > in particular in relation to power states handling (and what piece > of SW is in charge of power management) is significant and goes beyond > naming conventions, therefore the code (and reasoning behind it - ie > to have an identical driver interface to a completely different FW > model) in this series is just not acceptable, that's a plain shortcut. > We will see how this should be implemented in ACPI, not with this > code (and FW bindings). Oh, absolutely - what I'm saying is that once that's done I'd expect implementing it to be almost entirely a regulator core change in the same way that implementing DT support was.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
