On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 03:42:08PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 5/6/21 3:37 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 12:28:40PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:43 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> With CONFIG_ACPI=n and -Werror, 0-day reports: > >>> > >>> drivers/iio/chemical/bme680_i2c.c:46:36: error: > >>> 'bme680_acpi_match' defined but not used > >>> > >>> Apparently BME0680 is not a valid ACPI ID. Remove it and with it > >>> ACPI support from the bme680_i2c driver. > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> with the SPI part amended in the same way. > >> > > Right. I just sent a patch doing that. Oddly enough 0-day didn't complain > > about that one to me, nor about many other drivers with the same problem. > > No idea how it decides if and when to make noise. > > > > Is there a way to determine invalid ACPI IDs ? > > No, unfortunately not. There is a format which ACPI IDs are > supposed to follow, but some "out in the wild" API ids don't > follow this; and many fake (made up) ACPI ids do follow it... > > We (mostly Andy and me) are not even 100% sure this one is > a fake ACPI ID, but we do pretty strongly believe that it is. > What a mess :-( Guenter
