From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Implement generic regulator constraints parsing for ACPI and OF Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:27:55 -0800 Message-ID: <20170125232755.GC36291@dtor-ws> References: <20170125000641.25520-1-furquan@chromium.org> <20170125124911.dxveow7bo3zw5jcc@sirena.org.uk> <20170125182319.GB25470@leverpostej> <20170125182955.uznr5ehpx4dabcon@sirena.org.uk> <20170125184432.GA27255@dtor-ws> <20170125192711.GB27255@dtor-ws> <572bcaff-7b17-0614-0cd2-0887ae33eb65@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <572bcaff-7b17-0614-0cd2-0887ae33eb65@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Al Stone Cc: Mark Brown , Mark Rutland , Furquan Shaikh , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Liam Girdwood , Tony Lindgren , Len Brown , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Hanjun Guo , Will Deacon , Rob Herring , Sathyanarayana Nujella , Heikki Krogerus , Adam Thomson , Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:44:10PM -0700, Al Stone wrote: > > But, to the point of some of the other discussion on the thread, this ACPI sort > of power management is a very, very different model than DT so that intertwining > the two models is highly unlikely to work, IMHO. And yet this is something that is sorely needed. If you look, for example, at drivers in drivers/input/*, then all non-SOC-specific devices can easily find their way onto both ACPI-based and DT-based systems (not mentioning legacy-style boards). Having two distinct power schemes implemented in drivers will lead to many problems. Having unified way of describing hardware is how _DSD came about, right? Nobody wanted to write and maintain and test two separate ways of describing properties when one was already implemented and working. Thanks. -- Dmitry From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752628AbdAYX2C (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:28:02 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f196.google.com ([209.85.192.196]:32812 "EHLO mail-pf0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751203AbdAYX2A (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:28:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 15:27:55 -0800 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Al Stone Cc: Mark Brown , Mark Rutland , Furquan Shaikh , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Liam Girdwood , Tony Lindgren , Len Brown , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Hanjun Guo , Will Deacon , Rob Herring , Sathyanarayana Nujella , Heikki Krogerus , Adam Thomson , Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux OMAP Mailing List , Aaron Durbin , dlaurie@chromium.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Implement generic regulator constraints parsing for ACPI and OF Message-ID: <20170125232755.GC36291@dtor-ws> References: <20170125000641.25520-1-furquan@chromium.org> <20170125124911.dxveow7bo3zw5jcc@sirena.org.uk> <20170125182319.GB25470@leverpostej> <20170125182955.uznr5ehpx4dabcon@sirena.org.uk> <20170125184432.GA27255@dtor-ws> <20170125192711.GB27255@dtor-ws> <572bcaff-7b17-0614-0cd2-0887ae33eb65@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <572bcaff-7b17-0614-0cd2-0887ae33eb65@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:44:10PM -0700, Al Stone wrote: > > But, to the point of some of the other discussion on the thread, this ACPI sort > of power management is a very, very different model than DT so that intertwining > the two models is highly unlikely to work, IMHO. And yet this is something that is sorely needed. If you look, for example, at drivers in drivers/input/*, then all non-SOC-specific devices can easily find their way onto both ACPI-based and DT-based systems (not mentioning legacy-style boards). Having two distinct power schemes implemented in drivers will lead to many problems. Having unified way of describing hardware is how _DSD came about, right? Nobody wanted to write and maintain and test two separate ways of describing properties when one was already implemented and working. Thanks. -- Dmitry