From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 01:22:10 +0200 Message-ID: <201409180122.10631.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1410530416-30200-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20140917014410.GC31214@srcf.ucam.org> <20140917160508.GA2464@xora-yoga-13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:57349 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754253AbaIQXXa (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2014 19:23:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140917160508.GA2464@xora-yoga-13> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Graeme Gregory Cc: Matthew Garrett , Hanjun Guo , Catalin Marinas , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Mark Rutland , Olof Johansson , Grant Likely , Will Deacon , linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, Liviu Dudau , Lv Zheng , Rob Herring , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Daniel Lezcano , Robert Moore , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Charles.Garcia-Tobin@arm.com, Robert Richter , Jason Cooper , Marc Zyngier , Jon Masters , Mark Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Randy On Wednesday 17 September 2014, Graeme Gregory wrote: > It sounds like from the discussions in other threads that ARM64 should > be following x86 and re-using DT bindings here. In which case there is > not need to submit things to UEFI organisation. > > What I got a little lost in has there been a formal decision about DT > bindings in _DSD? I think this is a discussion that still needs to happen: either we should recommend everyone to use _DSD in favor of the alternatives, or we should prohibit the use of _DSD. I have heard arguments both ways, but hopefully we can find an easy answer. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 01:22:10 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v4 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64 In-Reply-To: <20140917160508.GA2464@xora-yoga-13> References: <1410530416-30200-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20140917014410.GC31214@srcf.ucam.org> <20140917160508.GA2464@xora-yoga-13> Message-ID: <201409180122.10631.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wednesday 17 September 2014, Graeme Gregory wrote: > It sounds like from the discussions in other threads that ARM64 should > be following x86 and re-using DT bindings here. In which case there is > not need to submit things to UEFI organisation. > > What I got a little lost in has there been a formal decision about DT > bindings in _DSD? I think this is a discussion that still needs to happen: either we should recommend everyone to use _DSD in favor of the alternatives, or we should prohibit the use of _DSD. I have heard arguments both ways, but hopefully we can find an easy answer. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755240AbaIQXXd (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2014 19:23:33 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:57349 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754253AbaIQXXa (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2014 19:23:30 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Graeme Gregory Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 01:22:10 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.8.0-35-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Matthew Garrett , Hanjun Guo , Catalin Marinas , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Mark Rutland , Olof Johansson , Grant Likely , Will Deacon , linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, Liviu Dudau , Lv Zheng , Rob Herring , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Daniel Lezcano , Robert Moore , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Charles.Garcia-Tobin@arm.com, Robert Richter , Jason Cooper , Marc Zyngier , Jon Masters , Mark Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla References: <1410530416-30200-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20140917014410.GC31214@srcf.ucam.org> <20140917160508.GA2464@xora-yoga-13> In-Reply-To: <20140917160508.GA2464@xora-yoga-13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201409180122.10631.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:51gJCs6Z/mMveK4qASC5XvhspmdjIYtIbTbp1mLr5lC H2S/4Ji5n5GmVC1heS+Rjtqt40pjfO3b5hbbWWpB97ppk1I18P zShGbkRrCCl+UFWFxvCnqpPGCwduQUPzLmjyv/WgfcvUqcLAO+ ZZ/D+HIP6vD5xK3f5mDAEBiYT63uhxqMDgzkZ85NAQnOUbLhf2 RUQoXW9QYRz6wmsEk24MUpRsJAI3Km40FsnKAlzkccc+gsmSxy xboZzzT/khL4QxxEjK7zChKi45Oqx/Yq0z9lWpmnVxPhr90076 YNUPJ6504GjxGK28RqJLMmYeTSAXk9Dz2Qwq4YCXAU3Etyl1L3 wq40rBHMD8I0SOSvAmns= X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 17 September 2014, Graeme Gregory wrote: > It sounds like from the discussions in other threads that ARM64 should > be following x86 and re-using DT bindings here. In which case there is > not need to submit things to UEFI organisation. > > What I got a little lost in has there been a formal decision about DT > bindings in _DSD? I think this is a discussion that still needs to happen: either we should recommend everyone to use _DSD in favor of the alternatives, or we should prohibit the use of _DSD. I have heard arguments both ways, but hopefully we can find an easy answer. Arnd