On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 11:07:06 AM Darren Hart wrote: > > On 11/25/14 10:43, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:33:01AM -0800, Darren Hart wrote: > >> On 11/25/14 09:21, Mark Brown wrote: > > > >>> Given the design of _DSD is to share with DT and we already > >>> have device tree bindings for the device we should be using, > >>> it's not clear to me if we want to grind them all through UEFI > >>> and I suspect they'd be unhappy if we tried but pretty much > >>> all audio CODECs are good candidates for use with ACPI given > >>> the new hardware designs Intel have so if we are doing it I > >>> ought to be bouncing everyone to UEFI forum. > > > >> Right, I realized between sending and driving into the office > >> that my statement might be construed this way. I meant *new* > >> _DSD bindings should go through the ACPI/UEFI forum. Where we > >> can reuse DT bindings, we should absolutely do that, agreed. We > >> should still document this and link to the DT binding so it can > >> be referenced and used even when Linux is not the target OS. > > > > Link from where - do we want to talk to the ACPI/UEFI forum and > > figure out some kind of fast track process for them to add an > > "it's already covered by DT, see here" entry to their database for > > example? We also ought to work out how to make sure ACPI IDs are > > registered there as well, should be possible to have something > > simple as part of that. > > > > This is a current topic with the ACPI working group. We have the > following document: > > http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/_DSD-device-properties-UUID.pdf > > I don't know if we want to have a list of them here, or if a separate > document is needed. The important point is that it is independent from > the ACPI specification itself so that it can be updated out of band > with the specification, and not be subject to rather plodding pace > that would imply. > > Rafael, I've missed several of these meetings unfortunately, and I'm > not sure if we've closed on this point. Do you know?
This hasn't been discussed a lot at the meetings I attended. The bindings management process is being set up within the UEFI Forum, but I'm not sure if/how the existing DT bindings documented in the kernel tree are going to be covered by it ATM. -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/