On Thu 2017-03-23 08:45:58, Peter Rosin wrote: > 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 Sent to stable? What serious bug it fixes? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
