On 2017-03-20 17:04, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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.
Hi Andy,
I have no idea if PCA9540 etc are valid DSDT entries. Going forward,
I will Cc: ACPI people before taking ACPI patches. Sorry for the
inconvenience and sorry for my ignorance.
But before reverting, let's give Tin a chance to speak up...
Cheers,
peda
--
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
