lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [net-next: PATCH 00/12] ACPI support for DSA
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 5:44 PM Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> wt., 21 cze 2022 o 12:46 Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com> napisał(a):
> >
> > pon., 20 cze 2022 o 20:45 Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> napisał(a):
> > >
> > > > You beat me up to this. I also was about to mention that the problem with such
> > > > conversions (like this series does) is not in the code. It's simplest part. The
> > > > problem is bindings and how you get them to be a standard (at least de facto).
> > >
> > > De facto is easy. Get it merged. After that, i will simply refuse
> > > anything else, the same way i and other Maintainers would refuse a
> > > different DT binding.
> > >
> > > If the ACPI committee approve and publish a binding, we will naturally
> > > accept that as well. So in the end we might have two bindings. But so
> > > far in this whole ACPI for networking story, i've not heard anybody
> > > say they are going to submit anything for standardisation. So this
> > > might be a mute point.
> > >
> >
> > I understand your concern and of course it's better to be on a safe
> > side from the beginning. Based on the hitherto discussion under this
> > patchset, I would split the question about standardization to 2
> > orthogonal topics:
> >
> > 1. Relation to the bus and enumeration:
> > * As pointed out in another patch some switches can be attached to
> > SPI or I2C. In such a case this is simple - SPISerialBus /
> > I2CSerialBus structures
> > in _CRS are included in the ACPI Spec. They allow to comprise more
> > bus specific
> > information and the code in acpi/scan.c marks those child devices
> > as to be enumerated
> > by parent bus.
> > * MDIO bus doesn't have its own _CRS macro in the Spec, on the other
> > hand the _ADR
> > seems to be the only object required for proper operation - this
> > was my base for
> > proposed solution in patch 06/12.
> >
> > 2. The device description (unrelated to which bus it is attached)
> > * In Linux and other OS's there is a great amount of devices
> > conforming the guidelines
> > and using only the standard device identification/configuration
> > objects as per [1].
> > * Above do not contain custom items and entire information can be obtained by
> > existing, generic ACPI accessors - those devices (e.g. NICs,
> > SD/MMC controllers and
> > many others) are not explicitly mentioned in official standards.
> > * The question, also related to this DSA case - is the ACPI device()
> > hierarchical
> > structure of this kind a subject for standardization for including
> > in official ACPI specification?
> > * In case not, where to document it? Is Linux' Documentation enough?
> > I agree that in the moment of merge it becomes de facto standard ABI and
> > it's worth to sort it out.
> >
> > Rafael, Len, any other ACPI expert - I would appreciate your inputs
> > and clarification
> > of the above. Your recommendation would be extremely helpful.
> >
>
> Thank you all for vivid discussions. As it may take some time for the
> MDIOSerialBus _CRS macro review and approval, for now I plan to submit
> v2 of_ -> fwnode_/device_ migration (patches 1-7,11/12) and skip
> ACPI-specific additions until it is unblocked by spec extension.

Sounds good to me (as from fwnode perspective).

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-22 18:16    [W:0.115 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site