On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 05:44:36PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > On 06-08-17 16:30, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On 08/06/2017 05:35 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > On ACPI platforms, there are no phandles and we need to get the vbus by a > > > system wide unique name. Add support for a new "fcs,vbus-regulator-name" > > > device-property which ACPI platform code can set to pass the name. > > Another property to be documented and approved. > Again this is for kernel internal use on non-dt platforms only, so documenting > it in the devicetree bindings is not necessary. However it *is* for use on ACPI platforms and is impacting power management (which is something ACPI definitely models) so should be being documented in an ASWG spec. We don't want Linux systems to start breaking the ACPI power management model with uncontrolled extensions, it's fine to add new bindings for things where there's just no ACPI specification at all but power management isn't one of those areas. > TL;DR: It seems that on x86, at least for existing devices where we cannot > control the ACPI tables that getting things by name is the thing to do. The idiomatic thing to do on an ACPI system at present appears to be to have a big DMI quirk table somewhere that instantiates the regulators and mappings required for them based on the machine's DMI data. Or if it's a self contained PCI device or something with both regulator and consumer do it as part of the subfunction instantiation there.
Description: PGP signature