On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 02:39:33PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
I think Rafael said something about it being possible for us
to register our own kernel ACPI PNP IDs (as if: there is no
road here, but if someone starts to walk here, a road will
soon become, and we take the first step then).
It'd be straightforward to register the LNX PnP prefix and have someone
take responsibility for assigning numbers, but really a generic vendor
string should only be used when defining programming models rather than
specific devices.
But overall I am a bit confused: I am hearing from one end
of the x86 community that ACPI is the way to go for
configuring platform devices on x86, yet stuff like this is
popping up from independent vendors, and get integrated
on boards with no ACPI tables in sight.
ACPI is usually used to describe systems, and the normal ACPI way of
handling GPIO devices is to expose the device at the other end of the
GPIO lines and then provide AML for toggling the lines. Attaching an
actual driver to the device would interfere with that, so nobody writes
an actual driver.
Over at ksummit-discuss we have had a thread about
whether device tree should be used in such cases, but
that is not clear either.
If a vendor doesn't provide any way to autoprobe a device, there's no
way to autoprobe a device. That usually means that you're not expected
to use that device.