From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4EF942 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 22:03:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55B4D20367 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 22:03:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5371453E.2070108@intel.com> Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 00:03:42 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Brown , "Rafael J. Wysocki" References: <3007964.pJHjDrtZps@vostro.rjw.lan> <1399279528.20388.37.camel@pasglop> <2059176.eyfmTsLPbt@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140512215925.GY12304@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20140512215925.GY12304@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dvhart@dvhart.com, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] Driver model/resources, ACPI, DT, etc (sigh) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 5/12/2014 11:59 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > 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. While in practice ACPI is used on systems with active firmware usually, there's no expectation like this in ACPI itself in principle.