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.