Hi Mark,
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> [Correcting the devicetree list address, which I typo'd in my original
> reply]
>
>> >> +static const char * const addr_propnames[] = {
>> >> + "mac-address",
>> >> + "local-mac-address",
>> >> + "address",
>> >> +};
>> >
>> > If these are going to be generally necessary, then we should get them
>> > adopted as standardised _DSD properties (ideally just one of them).
>>
>> As far as I can tell, and please correct me if I am wrong, ACPI-6.0
>> doesn't contemplate MAC addresses.
>>
>> Today we are using "mac-address", which is an Integer containing the MAC
>> address in its lowest order 48 bits in Little-Endian byte order.
>>
>> The hardware and ACPI tables are here today, and we would like to
>> support it. If some future ACPI specification specifies a standard way
>> to do this, we will probably adapt the code to do this in a standard manner.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> +static acpi_status bgx_acpi_register_phy(acpi_handle handle,
>> >> + u32 lvl, void *context, void **rv)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct acpi_reference_args args;
>> >> + const union acpi_object *prop;
>> >> + struct bgx *bgx = context;
>> >> + struct acpi_device *adev;
>> >> + struct device *phy_dev;
>> >> + u32 phy_id;
>> >> +
>> >> + if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &adev))
>> >> + goto out;
>> >> +
>> >> + SET_NETDEV_DEV(&bgx->lmac[bgx->lmac_count].netdev, &bgx->pdev->dev);
>> >> +
>> >> + acpi_get_mac_address(adev, bgx->lmac[bgx->lmac_count].mac);
>> >> +
>> >> + bgx->lmac[bgx->lmac_count].lmacid = bgx->lmac_count;
>> >> +
>> >> + if (acpi_dev_get_property_reference(adev, "phy-handle", 0, &args))
>> >> + goto out;
>> >> +
>> >> + if (acpi_dev_get_property(args.adev, "phy-channel", ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER, &prop))
>> >> + goto out;
>> >
>> > Likewise for any inter-device properties, so that we can actually handle
>> > them in a generic fashion, and avoid / learn from the mistakes we've
>> > already handled with DT.
>>
>> This is the fallacy of the ACPI is superior to DT argument. The
>> specification of PHY topology and MAC addresses is well standardized in
>> DT, there is no question about what the proper way to specify it is.
>> Under ACPI, it is the Wild West, there is no specification, so each
>> system design is forced to invent something, and everybody comes up with
>> an incompatible implementation.
>
> Indeed.
>
> If ACPI is going to handle it, it should handle it properly. I really
> don't see the point in bodging properties together in a less standard
> manner than DT, especially for inter-device relationships.
>
> Doing so is painful for _everyone_, and it's extremely unlikely that
> other ACPI-aware OSs will actually support these custom descriptions,
> making this Linux-specific, and breaking the rationale for using ACPI in
> the first place -- a standard that says "just do non-standard stuff" is
> not a usable standard.
>
> For intra-device properties, we should standardise what we can, but
> vendor-specific stuff is ok -- this can be self-contained within a
> driver.
>
> For inter-device relationships ACPI _must_ gain a better model of
> componentised devices. It's simply unworkable otherwise, and as you
> point out it's fallacious to say that because ACPI is being used that
> something is magically industry standard, portable, etc.
>
> This is not your problem in particular; the entire handling of _DSD so
> far is a joke IMO.
It is actually useful to people as far as I can say.
Also, if somebody is going to use properties with ACPI, why whould
they use a different set of properties with DT?
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to use the same set in both cases?
Thanks,
Rafael
