Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 20 Jun 2022 20:45:05 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        rafael@kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org, vivien.didelot@gmail.com,
        f.fainelli@gmail.com, olteanv@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net,
        edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
        linux@armlinux.org.uk, hkallweit1@gmail.com, gjb@semihalf.com,
        jaz@semihalf.com, tn@semihalf.com, Samer.El-Haj-Mahmoud@arm.com,
        upstream@semihalf.com
Subject: Re: [net-next: PATCH 00/12] ACPI support for DSA
Message-ID: <YrDAMcGg1uF9m/L+@lunn.ch>
References: <20220620150225.1307946-1-mw@semihalf.com>
 <YrC0oKdDSjQTgUtM@lunn.ch>
 <YrC3ZKsMQK3PYKkR@smile.fi.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YrC3ZKsMQK3PYKkR@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

> You beat me up to this. I also was about to mention that the problem with such
> conversions (like this series does) is not in the code. It's simplest part. The
> problem is bindings and how you get them to be a standard (at least de facto).

De facto is easy. Get it merged. After that, i will simply refuse
anything else, the same way i and other Maintainers would refuse a
different DT binding.

If the ACPI committee approve and publish a binding, we will naturally
accept that as well. So in the end we might have two bindings. But so
far in this whole ACPI for networking story, i've not heard anybody
say they are going to submit anything for standardisation. So this
might be a mute point.

    Andrew