There's the whole using DT bindings in ACPI bindings thing, but I have little interest (or time) in supporting that. Maybe that's what's happening here? I haven't looked. The whole concept is flawed IMO. It may work for simple cases of key/value device properties, but the ACPI model is quite different in how resources are described and managed. Hi Rob, I chatted with Khalil and he confirmed that the reason he added the device tree support was to follow the example of existing upstreamed i2c drivers (even if we have no support for it and all our customers have to use our firmware including UEFI ACPI tables). So it is unrelated to DT bindings in ACPI bindings. He agrees that it is better to just remove the device tree support (from the driver itself and from the documentation). So if you don't have any objections, I will remove it.
