From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mika Westerberg Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] ACPI graph support Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:12:30 +0300 Message-ID: <20161012111230.GX2774@lahna.fi.intel.com> 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> <20161011123532.GC24347@remoulade> <20161012090003.GR2774@lahna.fi.intel.com> <20161012102836.wng5g4lb5ouvc3lc@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:54974 "EHLO mga05.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751171AbcJLLPj (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:15:39 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161012102836.wng5g4lb5ouvc3lc@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Mark Rutland , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Sakari Ailus , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, ahs3@redhat.com On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:28:36PM +0200, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:00:03PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > The _DEP method should be used for Operation Region dependencies but > > here it is used for functional dependencies so that the audio machine > > driver can find the corresponding codec. Why Microsoft used it like this > > and not pushed it to ASWG to be added to the ACPI spec? Should we now > > refuse to support it in Linux on the basis that it has not been > > discussed with ASWG and it abuses _DEP? > > The fact that the ACPI community hasn't been doing a good job of working > together is essentially the issue that people are pushing back on here. > We appear to not even be trying to set a better standard for how to do > things here. Why using _DSD and the existing, well tested, DT properties (remote endpoints) is not even considered making a better standard? > Sitting externally to the group at Intel doing this it really looks like > there's been a decision to mirror DT into ACPI en masse. There has been no such decision as far as I can tell. > If we really want to do that we should actually take that decision, > preferrably with at least buy in from other ACPI users on Linux and > with some review of existing ACPI standardization efforts to make sure > we're not duplicating work there. Ideally we'd also be pushing > anything we do towards ASWG even if just as a fiat accomplait. Agreed. > > > 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. > > > These boards we are talking about ship with ACPI based firmware. We > > should not expect users of those boards to be cabable of replacing the > > existing firmware with DT one. > > Since we're still at the point of defining bindings hopefully we're not > shipping yet... No, those systems are already out there. See Intel Joule for one example (there are many others). You can connect your own camera sensor there.