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[1] 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
functional/compliance issues.

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.


Reply via email to