From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David Woodhouse" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] Add ACPI _DSD and unified device properties support Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:11:18 -0000 Message-ID: <7ce75234f8b2dd8bcc747f296f626487.squirrel@twosheds.infradead.org> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <543E88CF.5060504@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Darren Hart Cc: David Woodhouse , Mark Rutland , "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 > My comment was going to be along the same lines. It is an optional > parameter, which is what I would expect for a firmware-specific type of > property. Right. Fundamentally, device properties (in DT or ACPI) exist to describe the hardware in a generic and abstract fashion. It's a slippery slope from saying "you don't need this property because you know you whether you are on the *foo* architecture", to saying "you don't this property because you know whether you're on a Assabet or not." I think it's wrong to go down that path. -- dwmw2