Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: rt5677: Add ACPI device probing

From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
	Ben Zhang <benzh@chromium.org>,
	alsa-devel <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	Bard Liao <bardliao@realtek.com>,
	Oder Chiou <oder_chiou@realtek.com>,
	Anatol Pomozov <anatol@google.com>,
	Dylan Reid <dgreid@chromium.org>,
	flove@realtek.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: rt5677: Add ACPI device probing
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:43:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141125184304.GK7712@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5474CB5D.9050807@linux.intel.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1273 bytes --]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:33:01AM -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> On 11/25/14 09:21, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Given the design of _DSD is to share with DT and we already have
> > device tree bindings for the device we should be using, it's not
> > clear to me if we want to grind them all through UEFI and I suspect
> > they'd be unhappy if we tried but pretty much all audio CODECs are
> > good candidates for use with ACPI given the new hardware designs
> > Intel have so if we are doing it I ought to be bouncing everyone to
> > UEFI forum.

> Right, I realized between sending and driving into the office that my
> statement might be construed this way. I meant *new* _DSD bindings
> should go through the ACPI/UEFI forum. Where we can reuse DT bindings,
> we should absolutely do that, agreed. We should still document this
> and link to the DT binding so it can be referenced and used even when
> Linux is not the target OS.

Link from where - do we want to talk to the ACPI/UEFI forum and figure
out some kind of fast track process for them to add an "it's already
covered by DT, see here" entry to their database for example?  We also
ought to work out how to make sure ACPI IDs are registered there as
well, should be possible to have something simple as part of that.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]