Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] introduce priority-based shutdown support

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 01:08:24PM +0000, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> Yes, using device tree would be good, but now you have created something
> that is device-tree-specific and not all the world is device tree :(

AFAICT the idiomatic thing for ACPI would be platform quirks based on
DMI information.  Yay ACPI.  If the system is more Linux targetted then
you can use _DSD properties to store DT properties, these can then be
parsed out in a firmware interface neutral way via the fwnode API.  I'm
not sure there's any avoiding dealing with firmware interface specifics
at some point if we need platform description.

> Also, many devices are finally moving out to non-device-tree busses,
> like PCI and USB, so how would you handle them in this type of scheme?

DT does have bindings for devices on discoverable buses like PCI - I
think the original thing was for vendors cheaping out on EEPROMs though
it's also useful when things are soldered down in embedded systems.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature