On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 02:22:15PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, May 05, 2014 06:45:28 PM Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 14:28 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > > In my opinion, device drivers should not be concerned about that
> > > really.
> > > The layers of code above them (bus types etc.) should, but not drivers
> > > themselves, because that makes it difficult to use the same driver
> > > for the same piece of hardware on two systems with different firmware
> > > interfaces.

> > Only for standardized resource types, such as mmio ranges or interrupts.

> > Anything else is absolutely in the domain of competence of the driver
> > and I would argue *only* in the domain of competence of the driver.

> But why can't we treat DT bindings as a standard?

Aside from the whole question of people bothering to pay attention to
the specs when writing their BIOSs DTs (as used in modern systems) and
ACPI have quite different models for what should be handled where - FDT
is pure data and expects the kernel to do everything while ACPI expects
to be used with active firmware.