linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 18 Sep 2014 01:22:10 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>
Cc:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org, Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
	Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Charles.Garcia-Tobin@....com,
	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64

On Wednesday 17 September 2014, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> It sounds like from the discussions in other threads that ARM64 should
> be following x86 and re-using DT bindings here. In which case there is
> not need to submit things to UEFI organisation.
> 
> What I got a little lost in has there been a formal decision about DT
> bindings in _DSD?

I think this is a discussion that still needs to happen: either we should
recommend everyone to use _DSD in favor of the alternatives, or we
should prohibit the use of _DSD. I have heard arguments both ways, but
hopefully we can find an easy answer.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/