On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 8:26 PM Jonathan Cameron
<jic23@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 16:45:05 +0100
> Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 10:12:51 +0300
> > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 3:39 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > > > static const struct acpi_device_id adc081c_acpi_match[] = {
> > >
> > > These IDs seem to me artificial (and non-official). Perhaps in a
> > > separate patch remove them?
> > > Or do we have confirmation (in writing) from TI that these are okay?
> > +CC Dan O'Donovan,
> >
> > It seems highly unlikely these are 'official'.
+1 here.
> > Dan. You added them, can you give us some background (admittedly
> > 4 years ago so you may not recall!)
> >
> > Unfortunately I was rather less aware of ACPI than I have become in
> > the meantime, so let these in without questioning them.
> >
> > If we have these out there in in the wild, we can still add a note
> > to make it clear that people should avoid using them in future,
> > or copying the approach in other drivers.
> >
> As this is a separate issue (kind of) I've applied this patch and
> we can address whether to remove the ACPI bindings separately.
Agree. Just to mention one more time that this shouldn't be forgotten.
Also we can ask somebody from TI.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
