On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 1:11 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/25/20 11:55 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 10:37 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > I'm wondering if we can meanwhile update hwdb to support > > i2c-multi-instantiate cases in the future and in a few years switch to > > it. > > Even if we fix current hwdb entries to match on both, then there > is no guarantee newly added entries will also contain the new match. > > Now with the code to get the matrix from the ACPI tables new entries > should happen less often, but I saw at least one model where the ACPI > provided matrix appears to be wrong (if the ACPI matrix was always > correct then breaking hwdb would not really be an issue). > > So I don't think this is going to work and all in all it feels like > a lot of work for little gain. Okay! ... > >> + .dev_name = "BOSC0200:base", > > > > Hmm... Can we use '.' (dot) rather than ':' (colon) to avoid confusion > > with ACPI device naming schema? (Or was it on purpose?) > > So with the ':' the end result is: > > [root@localhost ~]# cd /sys/bus/i2c/devices/ > [root@localhost devices]# ls | cat > 6-0050 > i2c-0 > i2c-1 > i2c-2 > i2c-3 > i2c-4 > i2c-5 > i2c-6 > i2c-BOSC0200:00 > i2c-BOSC0200:base > i2c-WCOM50BD:00 > > Which looks nice and consistent, which is why I went with the ':' > and since base is not a number, there is no chance on conflicting with > ACPI device names (it does look somewhat like an ACPI device name, but > it is an ACPI enumerated device, so ...). I see. So this was made on purpose. > Anyways if there is a strong preference for changing this to a '.' > I would be happy to make this change. No strong preferences from my side. > > And this seems to be the only device in the system, second as this is > > not allowed as far as I understand. Right? > > I don't understand what you are trying to say here, sorry. > > > But theoretically I can > > create an ACPI SSDT with quite similar excerpt and sensor and > > enumerate it via ConfigFS (I understand that is quite unlikely). What if you have two devices with the same ID and both have two I2cSerialBusV2() resources? Second one can't be instantiated because 'base' is already here. Making it like i2c-BOSC0200:00.base would be much better in my opinion. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
