Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: rt5677: Add ACPI device probing

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 07:36:23 PM Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> --njUEgrJvs9ryr/H/
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:07:06AM -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On 11/25/14 10:43, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > Link from where - do we want to talk to the ACPI/UEFI forum and=20
> > > 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=20
> > > example?  We also ought to work out how to make sure ACPI IDs are=20
> > > registered there as well, should be possible to have something=20
> > > 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
> 
> Seems to me like some indirection is going to be better rather than
> having one big document if there's widespread adoption, avoids lots of
> document churn.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> OK, I'll see if any of the people at work have been following as well.
> For now continuing to just document everything as DT bindings in the way
> we are already seems like a sensible interim approach.

Yes, that currently is the case in my view too.

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.