On 2017-03-22 14:05, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 11:23 +0100, Peter Rosin wrote: >> On 2017-03-21 20:13, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> In ACPI world any ID should be carefully chosen and registered >>> officially. The commit bbf9d262a147 seems did a wrong assumption >>> because >>> PCA is the registered PNP ID for "PHILIPS BU ADD ON CARD". I'm >>> pretty >>> sure this prefix has nothing to do with the driver in question. >> >> [Cc: leds people, in case they know any details] >> >> Hmmm, a couple of questions about that "pretty sure"... > > I didn't neither see the *real* excerpt from DSDT nor hear anything > about official IDs from Phillips. > >> Philips and NXP are pretty much just different faces of the same coin, >> IIUC. > > Good to know. > > While I might be mistaken, I would like to remove a confusion until we > get an official confirmation either in *real* existing product on the > market or letter from Phillips representatives (see above). Right, I don't disagree with the revert at all. The IDs were apparently just grabbed and, as you point out, that is not the ACPI way. One more question though, the revert (patch 1/2) should probably be queued up for current (4.11) and sent to stable as well (4.10 is the only version affected), but what about patch 2/2? Is that 4.12 material or should it too be "rushed"? I feel a bit like I have been thrown in at the deep end, and could use some guidance... *snip* > Thanks for input to this topic. As I said above I might be mistaken too, > though we can't just wilfully invent ACPI IDs without vendors' approvals > / confirmations. Yes, I (now) fully understand that the ACPI namespace is not in our hands. *snip* Cheers, peda
