[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b1b79de0-a078-486d-b3e9-96899354407c@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 17:32:13 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Abdurrahman Hussain <abdurrahman@...thop.ai>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] spi: xilinx: use device property accessors.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 09:15:40AM -0800, Abdurrahman Hussain wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 2026, at 8:50 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 08:47:17AM -0800, Abdurrahman Hussain wrote:
> >>> Are these bindings appropraite for ACPI systems?
> >> Yes, the Xilinx IP blocks are memory mapped and work exactly the same on ACPI as they do on DT.
> > That does not answer the question at all. Is it appropriate to
> > configure an ACPI system in this way?
> I am not sure I understood your question. What do you mean by “appropriate”?
> This is following the same guidelines as outlined in
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.7/firmware-guide/acpi/enumeration.html
You are just bindly making the DT properties available as _DSD
properties on ACPI systems, ACPI is a completely different firmware
interface with it's own idioms. Does this interface make any sense on
ACPI?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists