On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 10:12:35PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sun 2019-03-17 23:08:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 09:48:14PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Sun 2019-03-17 22:44:22, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 02:20:19AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > On Fri 2019-03-15 21:13:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > There is no evidence of officially registered ACPI IDs for these devices. > > > > > > Thus, revert commit 44b3e31d540e917a4d2292b902ade63fa1748d9a. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > NAK. I don't believe someone did that code without testing. > > > > > > > > Testing is irrelevant here. > > > > > > Do you believe someone wrote that code without testing? > > > > I can't say anything about this driver, though I believe that's > > possible. > > I don't think that's the case here. Here is the NXPs answer to my query: https://community.nxp.com/message/1126125?commentID=1126125&et=watches.email.thread#comment-1126125 There is no ACPI IDs allocated for these products. So, this is the case here, the ACPI IDs provided by these drivers never existed disregard your beliefs. > I believe you are breaking someone's config. They can probably fix it > easily, and then you get the what you wanted, but I don't see reason > to break it in the first place. Whose config? Show me that one. Especially taken into consideration that PCA PNP ID is registered to another company which may or may not allocate the IDs used in these drivers for something completely different. > WARN_ON(1) or something there might be acceptable. > > Breaking driver is not. There is no such thing as breaking driver on the devices which never exists. > > > > It's unlike device tree where IDs comes from thin air. > > > > Do you have any document in possession that supports legal base for these IDs > > > > being in the kernel? > > > > > > Legal? ACPI specification was not law last time I checked. > > > > If I'm not mistaken ACPI specification doesn't tell anything about _how_ the ID > > comes into the play. OTOH the official registry had been > > established. > > So what. You are saying "must" and "legal base", so explain. Yes, I referred to uefi.org page and ACPI specification which clearly tells how to achieve the status of ACPI official ID for the device. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
