From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: gg@slimlogic.co.uk (Graeme Gregory)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:40:36 -0700
Subject: [PATCH v4 18/18] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64
In-Reply-To: <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>
 <201409180122.10631.arnd@arndb.de>
Message-ID: <20140917234036.GC2464@xora-yoga-13>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 01:22:10AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 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.
> 

This discussion is just not going to happen until people at @redhat.com
and people who have currently announced/released hardware are actually
willing to start talking about it.

Id love to be able to put my foot down and ban the use of _DSD for
servers but I suspect that will not happen.

Graeme