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

[Al Stone]

On 02/04/2015 11:12 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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!

Yup :).

>>> +_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).

Right; the UEFI stuff is indeed place-holder-ish.  This is one of the places
where Linux is really driving what happens in the spec, so it's a little bit
of a chicken-and-egg problem.  I will go repair the UEFI data once I have
a better understanding of what's needed.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is: how specific does this need to be?
Does it need to be a step-by-step description, something like
Documentation/bindings/submitting-patches.txt, or something far more detailed
than that, with templates to fill out, and circles and arrows and a paragraph
on the back explaining each one [0] :)?


[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice%27s_Restaurant

-- 
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Linaro Enterprise Group
al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/