[Linaro-acpi] [RFC PATCH for Juno 1/2] net: smsc911x add support for probing from ACPI

Rafael J. Wysocki rjw at rjwysocki.net
Tue Sep 2 16:00:23 PDT 2014

On Tuesday, September 02, 2014 05:26:06 PM Mark Brown wrote:
> --s3puAW9DMBtS2ARW
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> 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.

Our intention is specifically not to use "random incompatible bindings"
in that.  We'd rather have a common venue and process for establishing
new bindings for both DT and _DSD in a compatible way.


I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list