Message-ID: <65f4e141-66b9-4120-87ba-5cbdcd02cb5f@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 11:40:21 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
 Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
 Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Hans de Goede <hansg@...nel.org>,
 Linux Documentation <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
 Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
 Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, Armin Wolf <w_armin@....de>,
 Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
 Ilpo Jarvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ACPI: Documentation: driver-api: Disapprove of using
 ACPI drivers



On 1/5/26 3:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> 
[snip]
> 
> Link: https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.6/02_Definition_of_Terms.html#term-ACPI-Namespace [1]
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> ---
> 
> Although this patch can be applied independently, it actually depends on
> some ACPI changes in linux-next and on
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/12824456.O9o76ZdvQC@rafael.j.wysocki/
> 
> so it is better to handle it along with that material.
> 
> ---
>  Documentation/driver-api/acpi/acpi-drivers.rst |   80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  Documentation/driver-api/acpi/index.rst        |    1 
>  2 files changed, 81 insertions(+)
> 
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/acpi/acpi-drivers.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +.. include:: <isonum.txt>
> +
> +=========================================
> +Why using ACPI drivers is not a good idea
> +=========================================
> +
> +:Copyright: |copy| 2026, Intel Corporation
> +
> +:Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> +
> +Even though binding drivers directly to struct acpi_device objects, also
> +referred to as "ACPI device nodes", allows basic functionality to be provided
> +at least in some cases, there are problems with it, related to general
> +consistency, sysfs layout, power management operation ordering, and code
> +cleanliness.
> +
> +First of all, ACPI device nodes represent firmware entities rather than
> +hardware and in many cases they provide auxiliary information on devices
> +enumerated independently (like PCI devices or CPUs).  It is therefore generally
> +questionable to assign resources to them because the entities represented by
> +them do not decode addresses in the memory or I/O address spaces and do not
> +generate interrupts or similar (all of that is done by hardware).
> +
> +Second, as a general rule, a struct acpi_device can only be a parent of another
> +struct acpi_device.  If that is not the case, the location of the child device
> +in the device hierarchy is at least confusing and it may not be straightforward
> +to identify the piece of hardware providing functionality represented by it.
> +However, binding a driver directly to an ACPI device node may cause that to
> +happen if the given driver registers input devices or wakeup sources under it,
> +for example.
> +
> +Next, using system suspend and resume callbacks directly on ACPI device nodes
> +is questionable either because it may cause ordering problems to appear.

Missing the "or ..." following "either because ...".
Or did you mean something like "also" instead of "either"?

> +Namely, ACPI device nodes are registered before enumerating hardware
> +corresponding to them and they land on the PM list in front of the majority
> +of other device objects.  Consequently, the execution ordering of their PM
> +callbacks may be different from what is generally expected.  Also, in general,
> +dependencies returned by _DEP objects do not affect ACPI device nodes
> +themselves, but the "physical" devices associated with them, which potentially
> +is one more source of inconsistency related to treating ACPI device nodes as
> +"real" device representation.
> +
> +All of the above means that binding drivers to ACPI device nodes should
> +generally be avoided and so struct acpi_driver objects should not be used.
> +
> +Moreover, a device ID is necessary to bind a driver directly to an ACPI device
> +node, but device IDs are not generally associated with all of them.  Some of
> +them contain alternative information allowing the corresponding pieces of
> +hardware to be identified, for example represented by an _ADR object return
> +value, and device IDs are not used in those cases.  In consequence, confusingly
> +enough, binding an ACPI driver to an ACPI device node may even be impossible.
> +
> +When that happens, the piece of hardware corresponding to the given ACPI device
> +node is represented by another device object, like a struct pci_dev, and the
> +ACPI device node is the "ACPI companion" of that device, accessible through its
> +fwnode pointer used by the ACPI_COMPANION() macro.  The ACPI companion holds
> +additional information on the device configuration and possibly some "recipes"
> +on device manipulation in the form of AML (ACPI Machine Language) byte code
> +provided by the platform firmware.  Thus the role of the ACPI device node is
> +similar to the role of a struct device_node on a system where Device Tree is
> +used for platform description.
> +
> +For consistency, this approach has been extended to the cases in which ACPI
> +device IDs are used.  Namely, in those cases, an additional device object is
> +created to represent the piece of hardware corresponding to a given ACPI device
> +node.  By default, it is a platform device, but it may also be a PNP device, a
> +CPU device, or another type of device, depending on what the given piece of
> +hardware actually is.  There are even cases in which multiple devices are
> +"backed" or "accompanied" by one ACPI device node (eg. ACPI device nodes

                                                      e.g.

> +corresponding to GPUs that may provide firmware interfaces for backlight
> +brightness control in addition to GPU configuration information).
> +
> +This means that it really should never be necessary to bind a driver directly to
> +an ACPI device node because there is a "proper" device object representing the
> +corresponding piece of hardware that can be bound to by a "proper" driver using
> +the given ACPI device node as the device's ACPI companion.  Thus, in principle,
> +there is no reason to use ACPI drivers and if they all were replaced with other
> +driver types (for example, platform drivers), some code could be dropped and
> +some complexity would go away.


-- 
~Randy

Powered by blists - more mailing lists