Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:24:21 +0000 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] introduce priority-based shutdown support |
| |
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 01:08:24PM +0000, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> Yes, using device tree would be good, but now you have created something > that is device-tree-specific and not all the world is device tree :(
AFAICT the idiomatic thing for ACPI would be platform quirks based on DMI information. Yay ACPI. If the system is more Linux targetted then you can use _DSD properties to store DT properties, these can then be parsed out in a firmware interface neutral way via the fwnode API. I'm not sure there's any avoiding dealing with firmware interface specifics at some point if we need platform description.
> Also, many devices are finally moving out to non-device-tree busses, > like PCI and USB, so how would you handle them in this type of scheme?
DT does have bindings for devices on discoverable buses like PCI - I think the original thing was for vendors cheaping out on EEPROMs though it's also useful when things are soldered down in embedded systems. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |