[Linaro-acpi] [RFC PATCH for Juno 1/2] net: smsc911x add support for probing from ACPI
broonie at kernel.org
Tue Sep 2 09:26:06 PDT 2014
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:42:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The way I recall the discussion, most people were on one extreme
> side of the discussion or the other:
> a) We should use _DSD for ARM64 servers to maximize code reuse with
> DT-enabled drivers, work around the slow UEFI standardization process,
> remain in control of the actual bindings, and avoid the need for
> endless per-ID platform-data definitions in drivers.
> b) We should never use _DSD at all, since doing that would have no
> advantage over using DT directly, and we should force every device
> manufacturer to specify their bindings in an official ACPI document
> to prevent random incompatible bindings from being established.
> Any device that shows up in servers should not need arbitrary detailed
> properties anyway, as the details are supposed to be hidden in AML.
> I can understand the reasons for both approaches, and I find it hard
> to say either one is invalid. However, the worst possible outcome in
> my opinion would be having to support a mix of the two.
Right, and the x86 embedded folks are going full steam ahead with _DSD
regardless so it seems there will be some systems out there using it
even if they're not ARM servers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the linux-arm-kernel