Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: Documentation: driver-api: Disapprove of using ACPI drivers

[Danilo Krummrich]

On Wed Jan 7, 2026 at 1:14 PM CET, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 3:01 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue Jan 6, 2026 at 1:27 PM CET, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > +This means that it really should never be necessary to bind a driver directly to
>> > +an ACPI device node because there is a "proper" device object representing the
>> > +corresponding piece of hardware that can be bound to by a "proper" driver using
>> > +the given ACPI device node as the device's ACPI companion.  Thus, in principle,
>> > +there is no reason to use ACPI drivers and if they all were replaced with other
>> > +driver types (for example, platform drivers), some code could be dropped and
>> > +some complexity would go away.
>>
>> I think it would be good to explicitly encourage people to convert existing
>> drivers (maybe even list some of those) and rephrase the last sentence to list
>> what exact infrastructure, complexity, etc. can go away once that happened.
>
> I can rephrase the last sentence, but the purpose of this document is
> to explain the motivation for the change rather than to make a call to
> action.
>
>> I think this would make it more likely to receive some contributions towards
>> this goal.
>
> I have prototype driver conversion patches for almost 50% of the cases
> right now and I'm expecting to have them for all of the cases by the
> end of the current development cycle, so I'm not sure how much there
> is to gain.
>
> I want people to not be surprised when they see those patches though.


Ok, sounds good then. With or without rephrasing the last sentence,

Reviewed-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx>