The commit bbf9d262a147aeaeee0bf4e1c121166d69e556d4 ("i2c: mux: pca954x:
Add ACPI support for pca954x") adds a so called "ACPI support" for the
driver and thus I have few questions (besides obvious typo in it):
0. Had it ever been tested?
1. Is there *real* DSDT / registered ACPI IDs for a such device(s)?
2. If "yes" on 1, can you provide Documentation with *real* DSDT
excerpt?
If the answer is "no" on 2, I'm about to revert this, because
ACPI is *not* like Device Tree chaotic mess. Any ID, property and
related stuff *must* be officially registered and carefully chosen.
To maintainers of the drivers, including but not limited to I2C
subsystem, please, Cc ACPI guys (Rafael, Mika, me, etc) *before*
applying any ACPI IDs if there no clear and *real* DSDT excerpt.
It's disregard if this case (pca954x) valid or not.
Thank you for understanding.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
