[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170125184949.x2wkoo7kbaaajkjk@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:49:49 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Furquan Shaikh <furquan@...omium.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Sathyanarayana Nujella <sathyanarayana.nujella@...el.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Adam Thomson <Adam.Thomson.Opensource@...semi.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
Aaron Durbin <adurbin@...omium.org>, dlaurie@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Implement generic regulator constraints parsing for
ACPI and OF
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:34:20PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:29:55PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > Mark, this was added in this cycle; can we please rip that out for now?
> > If it's instantiated directly we probably should.
> I think that given the larger problem that needs to be addressed here,
> and how the us of DSD properties muddies the water, it would be
> preferable to remove it until we have some consensus.
Can you send a patch with a writeup please?
> > I think there's a reasonable chance that any ACPI specs could be written
> > in such a way as to allow transparent support in Linux, the main thing
> > I'd worry about is naming issues.
> I think it's certainly possible to handle this so that drivers don't
> largely have to care. I also think there is some massaging the needs to
> be done (e.g. tables of names or some indirection for ACPI/DT
> differences), and a unified API that tries to completely hide that is
> not truly possible.
Given how little consumers can assume about what they'll be allowed/able
to do on a given system the naming should be about it - if anything else
leaks through I'd be a bit worried.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists