On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 8:40 PM Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 8/28/24 6:56 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 12:10 PM Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > Yes, and software nodes for DT are quite strange things! Why can't you > > simply fix the DT to begin with? > > For the ARM/DT variants we could do that. But we still have to deal with > the x86/ACPI ones here. So, then fix it there! Currently it's an abuse of software nodes inside the Linux kernel. > So for me it makes more sense to have it unified > and just deal with everything in this module. I understand the desire, but DT is DT and ACPI is ACPI, they are different despite having some common APIs in the Linux kernel. Moreover, DT has a validation tools and everything, making that being a software nodes has at least these disadvantages: - no official schema that must be supported and users are known of - no validation done - bloating of the Linux kernel binary and hence memory footprint > Also, if we consider that at some point we might get ACPI PEP support (I > know, far fetched right now): With that, ACPI on ARM might be feasible > and then we'd have to manage the same thing in two places... This (PEP) is something I have no knowledge about. But I think it's still orthogonal to the software nodes usage. > And lastly, the EC subdevices are quite contained and I don't see them > interacting with any other components in the DT, so it's more of a > stylistic choice where to put them. They are still part of hardware and DT describes hardware. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
