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