Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 11 Jul 2018 08:39:50 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc:     Srinath Mannam <srinath.mannam@broadcom.com>,
        wim@linux-watchdog.org, Ray Jui <ray.jui@broadcom.com>,
        Vladimir Olovyannikov <vladimir.olovyannikov@broadcom.com>,
        Vikram Prakash <vikram.prakash@broadcom.com>,
        Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>,
        linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] watchdog: sp805: Add clock-frequency property
Message-ID: <20180711153950.GA19932@roeck-us.net>
References: <1531212279-24953-1-git-send-email-srinath.mannam@broadcom.com>
 <20180710213557.GC27827@roeck-us.net>
 <CABe79T4+S2vxx8RoNkEtY7ncaKGvXVf0n_yqN81gmtHnhgqg9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <3868f0c7-e45e-d3b4-5365-12a6a0646f6f@roeck-us.net>
 <20180711153015.GA10578@e107155-lin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180711153015.GA10578@e107155-lin>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 04:30:16PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 06:47:49AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 07/11/2018 06:22 AM, Srinath Mannam wrote:
> > >Hi Guenter,
> > >
> > >Thank you very much for all the help with your feedback and review
> > >comments to complete the changes very fast.
> > >
> > >About the documentation..
> > >I have gone through few similar patches available in the kernel are
> > >listed in the mail of previous version.
> > >No documentation available in Linux for the properties used in those
> > >patches also.
> >
> > " No documentation available _in Linux_"
> >
> > Emphasis mine. Yes, I noticed this as well. I was asking for a reference
> > to documentation _outside_ Linux. Sorry for not being more specific.
> 
> Typically new properties needs to registered or discussed in dsd@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.

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 ?

Guenter