[Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] ACPI vs DT

Linus Walleij linus.walleij at linaro.org
Wed Jul 24 19:20:50 UTC 2013


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw at sisk.pl> wrote:

>  [Me]
>> > I was more thinking along the lines of atleast defining the base address
>> > or IO-port in the ACPI DSDT, not trying to abstract everything and its
>> > dog. Isn't it possible to just have ACPI provide some basics?
>
> There is a number of ways in which devices can be identified in the ACPI tables
> (_HID, _CID, _UID, _ADR) and then _CRS (_PRS, _SRS) can be used to get
> information about the device's resources.  Yes, the drvier needs to know
> what _HID corresponds to what physical device, for example, but a PCI driver
> also needs to know the device IDs of the devices it's going to handle.

That's expected I guess, the device tree equivalent is a compatible-string
which is just an ID string.

So what about the auto-probing in IOports as is done in this example:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137448658410733&w=2
(I have one more driver like this appearing I think.)

Is this just wrong and should be NACKed, requesting the authors to
go and fix their AML?

Or do we live in a mixed world of IOports and ACPI?

Yours,
Linus Walleij


More information about the Ksummit-2013-discuss mailing list