On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 11:14:59AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 11:06:20 +0200, > Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 11:16:08AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 19:01:16 +0200, > > > Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:00:34AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: ... > > > > > > + tas2781_generic_fixup(cdc, action, "i2c", "TIAS2781"); > > > > > > > > > > TI ACPI ID is TXNW > > > > > > > > > > https://uefi.org/ACPI_ID_List?search=TEXAS > > > > > > > > > > There's also a PNP ID PXN > > > > > > > > > > https://uefi.org/PNP_ID_List?search=TEXAS > > > > > > > > > > "TIAS" looks like an invented identifier. It's not uncommon but should > > > > > be recorded with a comment if I am not mistaken. > > > > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > Thank you, but actually it's a strong NAK to this even with the comment. > > > > We have to teach people to follow the specification (may be even hard way). > > > > > > > > So where did you get the ill-formed ACPI ID? > > > > Is Texas Instrument aware of this? > > > > Can we have a confirmation letter from TI for this ID, please? > > > > > > This is used already for products that have been long in the market, > > > so it's way too late to correct it, I'm afraid. > > > > > > What we can do is to get the confirmation from TI, complain it, and > > > some verbose comment in the code, indeed. > > > > Oh, no! Who made that ID, I really want to point that at their faces. > > Look at the Coreboot (successful) case, they created something, but > > in time asked and then actually fixed the ill-formed ID (that was for > > one of RTC chips). > > > > For this, please make sure that commit message has that summary, explaining that > > - states that ID is ill-formed > > - states that there are products with it (DSDT excerpt is a must) > > - lists (a few?) products where that ID is used > > - ideally explains who invented that and Cc them to the patch, so they will > > know they made a big mistake > > Sure, we should complain further and ask them that such a problem > won't happen again. I'm 100% for it. > > But the fact is that lots of machines have been already shipped with > this ID since long time ago, and 99.99% of them have been running on > Windows. Hence I expect that the chance to get a corrected ID is very > very low, and waiting for the support on Linux until the correction of > ID actually happens makes little sense; that's my point. Yes, I understand that. But we have to inform them to prevent from repeating this big mistake in the future. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
