On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 10:13:55AM +0000, Adam Thomson wrote: > On 01 May 2018 21:50, Mark Brown wrote:
> > There's a lot of things that ACPI *should* do but doesn't - it's a bit > > of a shambles how ACPI standards get defined and what's there is not > > really intended to handle systems like these semi-embedded ones. One of > > the big gaps in ACPI is that it has no handling at all of clocks, that's > > supposed to be done transparently by firmware in the ACPI model. What a > > lot of the embedded Intel people have been doing is coopting the DT > > bindings wholesale for ACPI systems but that has problems when you get > > into areas which should be handled in some way on ACPI systems like > > power and unfortunately clocks are kind of power adjacent so might be a > > bit sketchy here. > Yes I was aware that previously that was the case, although have not followed > this for a while. It just feels here that we should aim for something more > generic rather than a device specific property/binding, if possible, as that > feels messy to me and I'm sure other drivers could take advantage of this as > well. I've not looked at the clock code in too much detail though, at least > with > regards to this area, so not sure how feasible that is. > As a suggestion for ACPI would it be possible to re-use the 'clock-names' > property and add something in the framework to handle this? I completely agree that ACPI should have handling for clocks but it really feels like something that should be done as a proper spec rather than just ad hoc by Linux like the x86 embedded people often do - it's too close to the power management stuff that ACPI definitely does handle.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
