On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Simon Guinot <simon.guinot@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 03:40:01PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >> Maybe this leads to another interesting discussion on why >> ACPI is not used for configuring the board... > > Hi Linus, > > I am currently working on the next Seagate NAS boards (x86-based) and > again a Super-I/O will be used to provide some GPIO lines :) The device > should be an IT8732, which may be supported by the driver gpio-it8761e. > > Based on our previous experience, I am currently pushing the board > manufacturer (which also provides the BIOS) to get an get entry for > the Super-I/O device in the ACPI tables. > > Let me say it is not a easy task and I am still not sure to succeed... > Clearly the guys don't understand why they have to do that because the > other OS are used to identify the device via the I/O registers. OK so I report this to linux-acpi, HPA and Grant and hope that they will get them for this "we like port I/O-probing" attitude... there is only so much we can do. Basically the (embedded?) x86 vendors need to get their act together around ACPI just like the ARM vendors did with device tree. Only handwaving from my side, sorry... best I can do. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
