On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 09:54:39PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > 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? Because no-one can prove those IDs are official. Have you read https://uefi.org/PNP_ACPI_Registry ? 6.1.5 refers to this site. > > 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? Yes, I'm working for Intel, and no, I'm not representative nor official voice. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
