From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] ACPI graph support Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 13:35:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20161011123532.GC24347@remoulade> References: <1475621148-21427-1-git-send-email-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> <20161005092215.GA20248@red-moon> <20161005114129.GI1765@lahna.fi.intel.com> <20161005150641.GA22282@red-moon> <20161005153229.GO1765@lahna.fi.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:32822 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751672AbcJKMfi (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:35:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161005153229.GO1765@lahna.fi.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Mika Westerberg Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi , Sakari Ailus , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org, broonie@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, ahs3@redhat.com On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 06:32:29PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 04:06:41PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:41:29PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:22:15AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 01:45:33AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > The whole purpose of PRP0001 ID is to allow DT bindings to be reused in > > > ACPI systems, so that the drivers can just call device_property_* and > > > get the properties regardless of the underlying firmware interface. > > > > > > Are you saying that's not wanted? > > > > Not wholesale DT bindings import into ACPI, just no way. > > Of course not all DT bindings. Only those that do not have a native ACPI > representation. ... yet. For self-contained devices, this isn't much of a concern, but inter-device relationships are the sort of thing ACPI *needs* to know about, and define a model for. By trying to bodge this into _DSD, we're making matters worse by both delaying the inevitable and creating a tonne of technical debt that we have to deal with forever. By copying DT, but changing a few things, we're in effect creating a new ill-defined Linux-specific standard. If we're going to create a new standard, we should go through the ASWG, and make an actual standard. If we're not going to create a new standard, we should use DT directly, rather than trying to force DT into ACPI. Thanks, Mark.