Re: [PATCH v8 21/21] arm64: ACPI: additions of ACPI documentation for arm64

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 05:40:20PM -0700, Al Stone wrote:
> Much removed to cut down the size on this and to highlight a couple of specific
> sections pertinent to the ACPI on ARMv8 TODO List.....

This is of course good practice when replying to anything!

> > +_DSD	6.2.5		To be used with caution.  If this object is used, try
> > +			to use it within the constraints already defined by the
> > +			Device Properties UUID.  Only in rare circumstances
> > +			should it be necessary to create a new _DSD UUID.
> > +
> > +			In either case, submit the _DSD definition along with
> > +			any driver patches for discussion, especially when
> > +			device properties are used.  A driver will not be 
> > +			considered complete without a corresponding _DSD
> > +			description.  Once approved by kernel maintainers,
> > +			the UUID or device properties must then be registered
> > +			with the UEFI Forum; this may cause some iteration as
> > +			more than one OS will be registering entries.

> [snip...]

> So, this is my attempt to encapsulate what I think people want to have happen
> around the use of _DSD; I just want to make sure I point it out so it doesn't
> inadvertently get lost somehow.

> Is this far too little?  Is it sufficient?  If it only addresses part of the
> concerns, what did I miss?

This does take us back to the issue of how exactly one is supposed to
register/approve _DSD bindings and what format they're written in which
I don't think we ever fully got to the bottom of it (there's some stuff
on the UEFI website but it's definitely looking a bit placeholderish).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature