On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 02:24:15AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sat 2019-03-16 14:44:35, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 12:09:06PM +0100, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > > > > On 3/15/19 8:13 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > It might be a case, but as I already said in the past to (some) maintainers: > > don't accept ACPI IDs without official prove from the vendor or example of DSDT > > in a wild which has that ID. > > Code is already in, so this is different situation. So what? It must be removed. Are you working for NXP? Are you representative of NXP? Official voice? No? > And yes, that rule kind-of makes sense. Feel free to comment on any > patches violating it. I can't travel back in time. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
