On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 04:09:27PM +0100, Clément Léger wrote: > Le Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:35:52 +0200, > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 12:31:45PM +0100, Clément Léger wrote: ... > > > + * For ACPI device node, the behavior is to not match the parent (see > > > + * did not checked the ) > > > > Would it be harmful to drop this check? > > Can't tell, I would not want to introduce some behavior wrt to parent > node for ACPI since it was not done this way. Might works in 99% of the > case though. > > If ok with that, I can drop it. Let's ask Mika and Jarkko if they know more on this. I think Mika was the one who introduced that (sorry, if I'm mistaken, haven't looked at the history carefully). P.S. Interesting enough that Mika is listed as I2C ACPI maintainer and his email is not in the Cc. Please, check how you form Cc list for this series and include all parties next time. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
