On 22 November 2017 at 11:30, Daniel Thompson <daniel.thomp...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 21/11/17 18:10, Udit Kumar wrote: >> >> Thanks Ard, >> For internal SOC devices, this is perfectly ok to drop PRP0001 from CID. >> >>> This could be a valid reason to use PRP0001 + compatible, for things like >>> I2C >>> slaves that are external to the SoC >> >> >> For external devices (for which HID is not available), you suggest to go >> with PRP0001 + compatible or that device driver needs add ACPI HID >> support. > > > I don't think internal or external to the SoC would be any kind of deciding > factor in how to best to bind, simply because I don't understand why there > is no HID available. >
PRP0001 + compatible was invented to avoid the need to allocate a _HID for each and every component in existence that can already be identified by a DT compatible string (and little else except, e.g., a I2C slave address) and is not deeply engrained in the SoC in terms of clock tree, power states etc. So while internal/external may not be the most accurate distinction, it is still a useful one IMHO. _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
