On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 08:39:50AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 04:30:16PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > Typically new properties needs to registered or discussed in d...@acpica.org
> > Though there's almost no activity on that list for more than a year now.
> > IIRC, the thread gives kind of agreement that was reached after
> > elaborate discussion on _DSD properties.
> I think you are saying that there are no real rules or governing body
> for _DSD properties, that _DSD properties are free for all, subject to no
> scrutiny, that a database with assigned _DSD properties does not exist,
> and that therefore there is no means for me to determine if this is an
> approved property.
Yes and no. The only intent of the review on d...@acpica.org to catch
functional/non-compliance issues with the property. The vendor needs to
own it and ensure the support is added in the kernel before shipping it.
> What prevents someone else to use a different property name for the same
> driver and property next week, on a different product using the same
> hardware ?
Honestly nothing. But the agreement was vendor needs to proactively get
it reviewed and add the support. The community can reject if it has
There has been elaborate discussions in the past on this and I provided
the link to the final agreement on that. It's always better to avoid
using them as first option if possible, else get the review/agreement
that it's good to use property.