On Sun 2019-03-17 23:58:56, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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. And, therefore...? IDs may not or may not be official. But I don't see the need to prove anything. If you want the patch accepted, you have to explain what it will fix and why it can't cause regressions. > Have you read https://uefi.org/PNP_ACPI_Registry ? > 6.1.5 refers to this site. Yeah. I see that whoever wrote uefi.org may dislike the current driver, and that you dislike it, too. That does not mean we _have_ to do anything, or that there is legal problem we need to solve. > > > 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. Ok, sorry for trolling. I'm not representative of NXP. 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
