> -----Original Message----- > From: Ingo Molnar [mailto:mingo.kernel.org@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ingo > Molnar > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 2:01 PM > To: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Vadim Pasternak > <vadimp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; mingo@xxxxxxxxxx; > hpa@xxxxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx; linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx; > x86@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; platform-driver- > x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [patch v1] x86/platform/mellanox: introduce support for Mellanox > systems platform > > > * Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:14:26AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > >> This is LPC to I2C bridge. > > > > > > > > "LPC"? > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Pin_Count > > > > > > "Modern ISA" > > > > So my original point stands, 1990's technology being used for brand > > new devices today, ugh :( > > > > Someone needs to go kick some hardware designers... > > In their defense, "this is a carbon copy of published 1990s technology" is a pretty > good starting point for a defendant, in patent litigation. > I understood your comments regarding undiscoverable busses. But we use LPC on all our x86 based systems. I have to activate all platform related stuff from some place and we don't support ACPI. Do you think it would be OK, if I'll remove all PCI related code, make use of DMI and leave only platform activation code? If yes, I'll re-work this driver and re-send it for your review. Thanks, Vadim. > Thanks, > > Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
