On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:22:39PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:45:36AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:27:00PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > To be frank the concept (and Microsoft _DSD bindings) seems a bit vague > > > > and not thoroughly defined and I would question its detection at > > > > PCI/ACPI core level, I would hope this can be clarified at ACPI > > > > specification level, at least. > > > > > > I guess that is the way they envision to use _DSD. Instead of having > > > single UUID that covers all properties (like what we have with device > > > properties) they have one UUID per property "class". I certainly hope we > > > don't need to keep extending prp_guids[] array each time they invent > > > another "class" of properties. > > > > It is even worse than that. This is a unilateral/obscure change that > > won't be part of ACPI specifications (I guess it was easier to add a > > UUID than add this to the ACPI specifications through the AWSG) but it > > is still supposed to be applicable to ACPI PCI bindings on any > > platforms/arches; this way of adding bindings does not work and it > > has to be rectified. > > I agree. > > For the existing property "classes" such as the one here I don't think > we can do anything. There are systems already with these included in > their ACPI tables. > > I wonder if you have any objections regarding this patch? I have strong objections to the way these bindings have been forced upon everybody; if that's the way *generic* ACPI bindings are specified I wonder why there still exists an ACPI specification and related working group. I personally (but that's Bjorn and Rafael choice) think that this is not a change that belongs in PCI core, ACPI bindings are ill-defined and device tree bindings are non-existing. At the very least Microsoft should be asked to publish and discuss these bindings within the ACPI and UEFI forums. Lorenzo
