linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: rt5677: Add ACPI device probing

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20141125193623.GL7712@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:36:23 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Ben Zhang <benzh@...omium.org>,
	alsa-devel <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Bard Liao <bardliao@...ltek.com>,
	Oder Chiou <oder_chiou@...ltek.com>,
	Anatol Pomozov <anatol@...gle.com>,
	Dylan Reid <dgreid@...omium.org>, flove@...ltek.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: rt5677: Add ACPI device probing

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:07:06AM -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> On 11/25/14 10:43, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Link from where - do we want to talk to the ACPI/UEFI forum and 
> > figure out some kind of fast track process for them to add an
> > "it's already covered by DT, see here" entry to their database for 
> > example?  We also ought to work out how to make sure ACPI IDs are 
> > registered there as well, should be possible to have something 
> > simple as part of that.

> This is a current topic with the ACPI working group. We have the
> following document:

> http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/_DSD-device-properties-UUID.pdf

> I don't know if we want to have a list of them here, or if a separate
> document is needed. The important point is that it is independent from

Seems to me like some indirection is going to be better rather than
having one big document if there's widespread adoption, avoids lots of
document churn.

> the ACPI specification itself so that it can be updated out of band
> with the specification, and not be subject to rather plodding pace
> that would imply.

> Rafael, I've missed several of these meetings unfortunately, and I'm
> not sure if we've closed on this point. Do you know?

OK, I'll see if any of the people at work have been following as well.
For now continuing to just document everything as DT bindings in the way
we are already seems like a sensible interim approach.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)