On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:42:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

The way I recall the discussion, most people were on one extreme
side of the discussion or the other:

a) We should use _DSD for ARM64 servers to maximize code reuse with
DT-enabled drivers, work around the slow UEFI standardization process,
remain in control of the actual bindings, and avoid the need for
endless per-ID platform-data definitions in drivers.

b) We should never use _DSD at all, since doing that would have no
advantage over using DT directly, and we should force every device
manufacturer to specify their bindings in an official ACPI document
to prevent random incompatible bindings from being established.
Any device that shows up in servers should not need arbitrary detailed
properties anyway, as the details are supposed to be hidden in AML.

I can understand the reasons for both approaches, and I find it hard
to say either one is invalid. However, the worst possible outcome in
my opinion would be having to support a mix of the two.

Right, and the x86 embedded folks are going full steam ahead with _DSD
regardless so it seems there will be some systems out there using it
even if they're not ARM servers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140902/7a072e51/attachment.sig>