On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
On Monday 15 December 2014 19:18:16 Al Stone wrote:
- How does the kernel handle_DSD usage?
- Problem:
- _DSD defines key-value properties in the DT style. How do we ensure _DSD bindings are well defined?
- How do we ensure DT and _DSD bindings remain consistent with each other?
- Solution: public documentation for all bindings, and a process for defining them
- Status: proposal to require patch authors to point at public binding documentation; kernel Documentation/devicetree/bindings remains the default if no other location exists; UEFI forum has set up a binding repository.
I think we also need to make a decision here on whether we want to use PRP0001 devices on ARM64 servers, and to what degree. I would prefer if we could either make them required for any devices that already have a DT binding and that are not part of the official ACPI spec, or we decide to not use them at all and make any PRP0001 usage a testcase failure.
Hmmm... having rules specifically for Aarch64 doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Whatever rules we choose for PRP0001 should apply equally regardless of architecture.
- Why is ACPI required?
- Problem:
- arm64 maintainers still haven't been convinced that ACPI is necessary.
- Why do hardware and OS vendors say ACPI is required?
- Status: Al & Grant collecting statements from OEMs to be posted publicly early in the new year; firmware summit for broader discussion planned.
I was particularly hoping to see better progress on this item. It really shouldn't be that hard to explain why someone wants this feature.
I've written something up in as a reply on the firmware summit thread. I'm going to rework it to be a standalone document and post it publicly. I hope that should resolve this issue.
g.