On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 06:05:09PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 04:30:24PM +0100, Henning Schild wrote: > > Am Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:46:31 +0200 > > schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 02:07:33PM +0100, Claudius Heine wrote: > > > > From: Johannes Hahn <johannes-hahn@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > This allows the RX6110 driver to be automatically assigned to the > > > > right device on the I2C bus. > > > > > > Before adding new ACPI ID, can you provide an evidence (either from > > > vendor of the component, or a real snapshot of DSDT from device on > > > market) that this is real ID? > > > > > > Before that happens, NAK. > > > > > > P.S. Seems to me that this is kinda cargo cult patch because proposed > > > ID is against ACPI and PNP registry and ACPI specification. > > > > In fact we pushed it in coreboot and Linux at the same time. > > > > https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/47235 > > > > That is the evidence. But in case this is wrong we can probably still > > change coreboot, even though the patches have been merged there already. > > Yes, first of all you must follow ACPI and PNP registry. You may use your > Google vendor ID for that (IIRC you have two of them). Ideally you need to > convince Seiko Epson to do the right thing. JFYI: According to the registry [1] they have their own vendor ID SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION SEC 11/29/1996 [1]: https://www.uefi.org/pnp_id_list > > Maybe you can go into detail where you see the violations and maybe > > even suggest fixes that come to mind. > > Please, read ACPI specification. In particular chapters 6.1.2 "_CID > (Compatible ID)", 6.1.5 "_HID (Hardware ID)". The latter clarifies > the rules used to define an ID. Note, chapter 6.1.2 uses in particular > "A valid HID value". > > I hope you are using as latest as possible ACPICA compiler (or at least > the one which follows the latest changes in it). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko