[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140902162606.GX29327@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 17:26:06 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Graeme Gregory <gg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [RFC PATCH for Juno 1/2] net: smsc911x add support
for probing from ACPI
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:42:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The way I recall the discussion, most people were on one extreme
> side of the discussion or the other:
> a) We should use _DSD for ARM64 servers to maximize code reuse with
> DT-enabled drivers, work around the slow UEFI standardization process,
> remain in control of the actual bindings, and avoid the need for
> endless per-ID platform-data definitions in drivers.
> b) We should never use _DSD at all, since doing that would have no
> advantage over using DT directly, and we should force every device
> manufacturer to specify their bindings in an official ACPI document
> to prevent random incompatible bindings from being established.
> Any device that shows up in servers should not need arbitrary detailed
> properties anyway, as the details are supposed to be hidden in AML.
> I can understand the reasons for both approaches, and I find it hard
> to say either one is invalid. However, the worst possible outcome in
> my opinion would be having to support a mix of the two.
Right, and the x86 embedded folks are going full steam ahead with _DSD
regardless so it seems there will be some systems out there using it
even if they're not ARM servers.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists