[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZWSmlfWYSbQHVvOk@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:24:21 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Søren Andersen <san@...v.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] introduce priority-based shutdown support
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 01:08:24PM +0000, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> Yes, using device tree would be good, but now you have created something
> that is device-tree-specific and not all the world is device tree :(
AFAICT the idiomatic thing for ACPI would be platform quirks based on
DMI information. Yay ACPI. If the system is more Linux targetted then
you can use _DSD properties to store DT properties, these can then be
parsed out in a firmware interface neutral way via the fwnode API. I'm
not sure there's any avoiding dealing with firmware interface specifics
at some point if we need platform description.
> Also, many devices are finally moving out to non-device-tree busses,
> like PCI and USB, so how would you handle them in this type of scheme?
DT does have bindings for devices on discoverable buses like PCI - I
think the original thing was for vendors cheaping out on EEPROMs though
it's also useful when things are soldered down in embedded systems.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists