On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Nikolaus Voss <nikolaus.voss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On 04/07/18 10:32, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Srinath Mannam >>> <srinath.mannam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> +1 on NACK for this and anything else that abuse PRP0001 as a short cut >> approach. > This is no abuse but exactly what PRP0001 is meant for. The basic idea of > PRP0001 is to reuse DT "compatible" strings in ACPI namespace, see > Documentation/acpi/enumeration.txt. Reusing also means getting access to the > of_device_id. The idea was for almost DIY and / or manufacturer to develop a prototype without modifying match code and faking ACPI IDs. That's why the target of PRP0001 is almost sensors connected to I2C and SPI. That's why I agreed on your patch to help with this. But! The proper solution for the devices (device manufacturer) is to allocate an ACPI ID and provide a corresponding table to the driver. This is my understanding of that exercise. Rafael can correct me. > Allocating an ACPI id for an already existing DT driver is redundant, isn't > it? It is not. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- 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
