On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:34:20PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:29:55PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > > Mark, this was added in this cycle; can we please rip that out for now?

> > If it's instantiated directly we probably should.

> I think that given the larger problem that needs to be addressed here,
> and how the us of DSD properties muddies the water, it would be
> preferable to remove it until we have some consensus.

Can you send a patch with a writeup please?

> > I think there's a reasonable chance that any ACPI specs could be written
> > in such a way as to allow transparent support in Linux, the main thing
> > I'd worry about is naming issues.

> I think it's certainly possible to handle this so that drivers don't
> largely have to care. I also think there is some massaging the needs to
> be done (e.g. tables of names or some indirection for ACPI/DT
> differences), and a unified API that tries to completely hide that is
> not truly possible.

Given how little consumers can assume about what they'll be allowed/able
to do on a given system the naming should be about it - if anything else
leaks through I'd be a bit worried.