From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:39444 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726586AbeGKQKs (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2018 12:10:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:05:40 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Srinath Mannam , wim@linux-watchdog.org, Ray Jui , Vladimir Olovyannikov , Vikram Prakash , Scott Branden , Sudeep Holla , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] watchdog: sp805: Add clock-frequency property Message-ID: <20180711160540.GA12449@e107155-lin> References: <1531212279-24953-1-git-send-email-srinath.mannam@broadcom.com> <20180710213557.GC27827@roeck-us.net> <3868f0c7-e45e-d3b4-5365-12a6a0646f6f@roeck-us.net> <20180711153015.GA10578@e107155-lin> <20180711153950.GA19932@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180711153950.GA19932@roeck-us.net> Sender: linux-watchdog-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 08:39:50AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 04:30:16PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: [...] > > > > Typically new properties needs to registered or discussed in dsd@acpica.org > > Though there's almost no activity on that list for more than a year now. > > IIRC, the thread[1] gives kind of agreement that was reached after > > elaborate discussion on _DSD properties. > > > > I think you are saying that there are no real rules or governing body > for _DSD properties, that _DSD properties are free for all, subject to no > scrutiny, that a database with assigned _DSD properties does not exist, > and that therefore there is no means for me to determine if this is an > approved property. > Yes and no. The only intent of the review on dsd@acpica.org to catch functional/non-compliance issues with the property. The vendor needs to own it and ensure the support is added in the kernel before shipping it. > What prevents someone else to use a different property name for the same > driver and property next week, on a different product using the same > hardware ? > Honestly nothing. But the agreement was vendor needs to proactively get it reviewed and add the support. The community can reject if it has functional/compliance issues. There has been elaborate discussions in the past on this and I provided the link to the final agreement on that. It's always better to avoid using them as first option if possible, else get the review/agreement that it's good to use property. -- Regards, Sudeep