On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 07:21:35PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 06:29:55PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > 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 that the difference between ACPI and DT firmware models,
> in particular in relation to power states handling (and what piece
> of SW is in charge of power management) is significant and goes beyond
> naming conventions, therefore the code (and reasoning behind it - ie
> to have an identical driver interface to a completely different FW
> model) in this series is just not acceptable, that's a plain shortcut.

> We will see how this should be implemented in ACPI, not with this
> code (and FW bindings).

Oh, absolutely - what I'm saying is that once that's done I'd expect
implementing it to be almost entirely a regulator core change in the
same way that implementing DT support was.