On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Kuppuswamy SathyanarayananIf the main reason for implementing a new ABI is to support DT platforms, Why not implement a version of _PLD for device tree ? Don't you think it would be much better than adding a new ABI to export redundant information ?
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Since Acpi framework already exports this info to user space, Why not doThe ABI was added in the previous patch so that we can present the
this derivation in user space code ? Why do we need new ABI, if the same
can be derived from existing one.
sensor orientation information to userspace even in the case of device
tree.
The purpose of this patch is to provide a consistent ABI to userspace,
i.e. to avoid doing one thing in the ACPI case and another thing in
the case of device tree.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html