From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Darren Hart Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] Add ACPI _DSD and unified device properties support Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:43:01 +0200 Message-ID: <543E9605.6020502@linux.intel.com> References: <2660541.BycO7TFnA2@vostro.rjw.lan> <1413378271.2762.77.camel@infradead.org> <20141015131551.GC20034@leverpostej> <1413379736.2762.79.camel@infradead.org> <20141015134209.GD20034@leverpostej> <543E88CF.5060504@linux.intel.com> <20141015151702.GG20034@leverpostej> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141015151702.GG20034@leverpostej> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: David Woodhouse , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Mika Westerberg , ACPI Devel Maling List , Aaron Lu , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , Dmitry Torokhov , Bryan Wu , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Arnd Bergmann , "dvhart@infradead.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 10/15/14 17:17, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 03:46:39PM +0100, Darren Hart wrote: >> Mark, what would you propose we do differently to enable this driver to >> be firmware-type agnostic? > > For this particular driver, all I'm asking for is that the > "used-by-rtas" property is not moved over from of_find_property to > device_get_property. It is irrelevant for all ACPI systems. Evidently my > comment was unclear; I apologise for that. So my objection here is that by keeping the of_* terms in the driver we are required to include of, although it does safely convert to returning NULL if !CONFIG_OF I suppose. > We have status = "disabled" as a less specific mechanism for telling the > OS to ignore a node in DT. I was under the impression that ACPI already > had a mechanism for marking devices to be ignored, but perhaps I am > mistaken. That is correct, in ACPI this would be properly implemented with the _STA reserved named method. In which case it wouldn't enumerate. > > The concerns I mentioned at the end of my original reply were of a more > general nature than this particular device description. > > Thanks, > Mark. > -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center