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 17:05:40 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
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>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.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: <20180711160540.GA12449@e107155-lin>
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>
 <20180711153950.GA19932@roeck-us.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180711153950.GA19932@roeck-us.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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 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.
>

Yes and no. The only intent of the review on dsd@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.

--
Regards,
Sudeep