On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 2:53 PM Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed 2021-05-05 16:22:07, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 11:36 AM Jonathan Cameron > > <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 May 2021 09:32:35 +0100 > > > Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 4 May 2021 11:00:52 -0700 > > > > Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > +Cc: Paul (I hope you are related to coreboot somehow and can > > communicate this further), Pavel and Jacek (LED subsystem suffered > > with this as well), Hans, Rafael and linux-acpi@ > > Thanks for Cc. I prefer @ucw.cz address for the LED work. Noted! > > > > Dropping the ones we are fairly sure are spurious is even better! > > > > > > If I get bored I'll just do a scrub of all the instances of this that > > > you haven't already cleaned up. It's worth noting that we do > > > know some highly suspicious looking entries are out there in the wild. > > > > I have counted ~60 users of acpi_device_id in IIO. Brief looking at > > the IDs themselves rings an alarm about half of them. > > As far as I can tell, this means asking "is this real ID or did you > just invent it" at patch submission. Okay... I would put it in a way that "Please, provide an ASL excerpt / ACPI tables dump" or something alike. Because it may also show some additional information that would make sense to consider when adding an ID to the driver. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
