On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 11:34 AM Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 4 May 2021 11:00:52 -0700 > Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 5/4/21 10:44 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 8:40 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'll resend and let you add the tag, and send a similar patch > > for STK8312. I'll wait until tomorrow, though - I sent a number of > > patches today already, and I want to avoid yet another "account > > suspended" notice from gmail. > > If you find some valid ACPI entries that are hitting this problem, > I'd prefer we just got rid of the ACPI_PTR() usecases rather than > added IFDEF magic. Agree, > The space wasted by having these is trivial and I'd rather not > introduce ifdef around any of these tables. > Dropping the ones we are fairly sure are spurious is even better! For the record, I have checked all three Guenter pointed out and to me all of them sounds like fake (two from the same author). So, I can deduce that if we have same author for a few looking very suspicious ACPI IDs, they are quite likely fake and must be removed sooner than later. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
