On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 08:39:50AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 04:30:16PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: [...] > > > > Typically new properties needs to registered or discussed in dsd@xxxxxxxxxx > > Though there's almost no activity on that list for more than a year now. > > IIRC, the thread[1] gives kind of agreement that was reached after > > elaborate discussion on _DSD properties. > > > > I think you are saying that there are no real rules or governing body > for _DSD properties, that _DSD properties are free for all, subject to no > scrutiny, that a database with assigned _DSD properties does not exist, > and that therefore there is no means for me to determine if this is an > approved property. > Yes and no. The only intent of the review on dsd@xxxxxxxxxx to catch functional/non-compliance issues with the property. The vendor needs to own it and ensure the support is added in the kernel before shipping it. > What prevents someone else to use a different property name for the same > driver and property next week, on a different product using the same > hardware ? > Honestly nothing. But the agreement was vendor needs to proactively get it reviewed and add the support. The community can reject if it has functional/compliance issues. There has been elaborate discussions in the past on this and I provided the link to the final agreement on that. It's always better to avoid using them as first option if possible, else get the review/agreement that it's good to use property. -- Regards, Sudeep -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
