On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 06:44:21PM +0300, Wu, Wentong wrote: > > From: gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 03:05:09PM +0000, Wu, Wentong wrote: > > > > From: Shevchenko, Andriy > > > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 08:52:28AM +0300, Wu, Wentong wrote: ... > > > > But this does not confirm if you have such devices. Moreover, My > > > > question about _CID per function stays the same. Why firmware is not using > > it? > > > > > > Yes, both _ADR and _CID can stop growing list in the driver. And for > > > _ADR, it also only require one ID per function. I don't know why BIOS > > > team doesn't select _CID, but I have suggested use _ADR internally, > > > and , to make things moving forward, the driver adds support for _ADR here > > first. > > > > > > But you're right, _CID is another solution as well, we will discuss it > > > with firmware team more. > > > > Should I revert this series now until this gets sorted out? > > Current _ADR support is a solution, I don't think _CID is better than _ADR to both > stop growing list in driver and support the shipped hardware at the same time. > > Andy, what's your idea? In my opinion if _CID can be made, it's better than _ADR. As using _ADR like you do is a bit of grey area in the ACPI specification. I.o.w. can you get a confirmation, let's say, from Microsoft, that they will go your way for other similar devices? Btw, Microsoft has their own solution actually using _ADR for the so called "wired" USB devices. Is it your case? If so, I'm not sure why _HID has been used from day 1... Also I suggest to wait for Hans' opinion on the topic. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
