From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755496Ab0IWOO0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:14:26 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:48139 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755407Ab0IWOOY (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:14:24 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,223,1283756400"; d="scan'208";a="327899717" Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:27:20 +0100 From: Alan Cox To: Mark Brown Cc: Alan Cox , Grant Likely , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, David Woodhouse , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mrst: add SFI platform device parsing code Message-ID: <20100923142720.13bf9d69@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20100923141133.GG25663@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> References: <20100920152705.GJ3414@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <20100922231514.5e9967c7@linux.intel.com> <20100923060703.GB11198@angua.secretlab.ca> <20100923095411.GA25663@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <20100923112703.543b0b86@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20100923102708.GC25663@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <20100923115818.0cac8d06@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20100923105208.GD25663@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <20100923111347.0cf93bb3@linux.intel.com> <20100923141133.GG25663@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > There should be no variations and the nature of the platform means > > that might even work out. I don't really want to add it to the > > table unless we have lots needing DMI data. Right now we don't and > > there are multiple platform implementations in existence. > > What is it about this platform that is going to restrict the problem? The sort of people who will be using it and how, > Code which makes this sort of assumption about knowing the platforms > that the device will be deployed on well is relatively common but the > usual result is that OEMs want to change the reference platforms and > the assumptions that the code has been making about the systems and > about how people will work with the code break down. There are non reference platforms in existence without the problem you envisage having occurred. So I think we'll worry about it if it happens but knowing that with DMI we have the tools to deal with this. Alan