On Sun 2019-03-17 22:46:13, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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. Must? Why? Because you say so? > Are you working for NXP? Are you representative of NXP? Official > voice? No? Are you working for Intel? Are you representative of Intel? Official voice? > > And yes, that rule kind-of makes sense. Feel free to comment on any > > patches violating it. > > I can't travel back in time. I meant to prevent this situation in future. I agree that comment what is going on there would be nice. 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
