Hi, [cut] > > > Hi Rafael, > > I found that _DEP is better than fw_devlink for ACPI since it works > during scan itself. For ex: the way PCI host bridges are scanned in > ACPI, PNP device handling. While some hacky solution could be done like > I did in v3 (pnp_irq() changes), _DEP way seems much better. > > So, we decided to go with your suggested approach and defined namespace > devices for PLIC and APLIC required to create dependency mechanism. > However, there are concerns that every device will have to add _DEP now > and whether it is intended for this use case. Also, actually the > dependency is already available in the form of GSI number mapping. > Hence, instead of explicit dependency, we would like to create implicit > dependency. So, I will send RFC v4 series with those changes. Please > help us with feedback. If you could provide quick high level go/no-go, > that will help us a lot since we need to finalize the spec whether to > mandate _DEP or not. > > I request you to provide some high level feedback in the RFC v4 I am > going to send. I will, thank you!
