After sending I realized that this does not sound as I initially intended, thus some rewording below. And I've just found out that author's email is disabled. Removing it then. On 3/16/19 12:01 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
Hi Andy, Thank you for the patch set. CC also the author and kernel ACPI guys. On 3/15/19 8:13 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:The similar to the commit e88162f9dad426f3c83e23150b7f28b7d9486df8 ("Revert "i2c: mux: pca954x: Add ACPI support for pca954x"") remove non-official ACPI IDs from LED drivers. This should be a de facto state until somebody shows either official letter from NXP about matter or DSDT dump (with machine / motherboard model) which has a such. Andy Shevchenko (2): leds: pca963x: Revert "Add ACPI support" leds: pca955x: Revert "Add ACPI support" drivers/leds/leds-pca955x.c | 22 +--------------------- drivers/leds/leds-pca963x.c | 22 +--------------------- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)I have one general question - is the problem in the lack of official announcement for these ACPI IDs? Or maybe some of the pca9xxx devices available on the market support different IDs? If neither of the above
s/If neither of the above/If only the former/
is the case then is there any other legal reason for not having this
s/other//
support in the kernel, even if it reportedly works for some pieces of the hardware?
-- Best regards, Jacek Anaszewski
