+Cc: more Aya-Neo emails (please, share it with your legal, involved managers
and engineers).
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 09:05:25PM +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > Any news from Aya-Neo? Have you fixed and issued a new firmware, please?
>
> Nothing I heard of. Anything I can do to further help with this?
Unfortunately we need to hear from the Aya-Neo, if they ever care about their
products. Without that it would make an unfortunate precedent which will open
a Pandora's box (means a green light on abusing ACPI specification and other's
IPs, yes, Intellectual Property in this case, as ID is an IP of the corresponding
vendor).
I'm fine if Realtek doesn't care about their IDs to be (ab)used by somebody else,
the main problem here is on Aya-Neo side.
Is there any engineer-to-engineer connection with Aya-Neo? Because using that
info@ address may be simply ignored / went to spam / etc.
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 7:50 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I filed the form, Cc'ed this to more people from Realtek, still no response on
> > the topic. Does Realtek really cares about their IDs?
> >
> > Any news from Aya-Neo? Have you fixed and issued a new firmware, please?
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 02:21:04PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > +Cc: another set of emails from Realtek as per Hayes' email.
> > >
> > > Please waterfall to the people inside Realtek who can answer the question.
> > > (Note, you may access this discussion in full via:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/CACAwPwYQHRcrabw9=0tvenPzAcwwW1pTaR6a+AEWBF9Hqf_wXQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u)
> > >
> > > The problem here is to have an official confirmation of what 10ec:5280
> > > ID is from Realtek's point of view.
> > >
> > > Context: the current discussion and a patch state that it's related
> > > to gyro sensor. Is it so?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:36:12AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021, Hayes Wang <hayeswang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:59 PM
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > > > > Realtek probably should make this ID marked somehow broken and not
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > > in their products in case the answer to the first of the above
> > > > > question
> > > > > > > > is "yes". (Of course in case the ID will be used for solely PCI
> > > > > enumerated
> > > > > > > > product there will be no conflict, I just propose to be on the
> > > > > safest side,
> > > > > > > > but remark should be made somewhere).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any comments from Realtek, please?
> > > > >
> > > > > Excuse me. I don't know this device, so I don't know who I could forward.
> > > > > Maybe you could try our contract window from our web site.
> > > > > https://www.realtek.com/en/cu-1-en/cu-1-taiwan-en
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for reply. I will try my best, but I am afraid that what you suggest
> > > > will be a long loop (and I believe the people behind that form are not
> > > > technical, they probably won’t understand the topic). I think you may pull
> > > > strings inside much faster. Just ask somebody who is technical superior in
> > > > your team / organization. Ideally inside company you may have a dedicated
> > > > people who responsible for allocating PCI and ACPI IDs.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
