On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 6:58 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 10:22:45 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 3:39 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The problem is that not all vendors have an ACPI manufacturer ID > (or a PNP one). They could probably get one but smaller manufacturers > are never going to bother. I understand and this is a real flaw in the ACPI process. But users (customers) should do something about it. > > That said, the commit message is misleading a bit here (it might be > > useful for the components which are not supported by existing ACPI ID. > > I'm a bit dubious about encouraging people to use an Intel ID. If it > were issued by TI for a TI part that would be a different matter. Here it's an ID corresponding to one of the supported components, so, PRP0001 makes sense for the rest. Rephrase the message to be more align with the reality (as per previous comment on the patch with same matter). > Obviously there is no problem with Intel issuing an ID, or anyone else > doing so. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
