On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 05:02:59PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 06:42:33PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 04:24:54PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 12:32:26AM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote: > > > > It also creates some problems to suppress the enumeration of the i2c > > > > device via ACPI (which we'll have to do in a machine specific fashion, > > > > because some laptops have this chip with properly configured ACPI and > > > > > > To be clear I think that's a terrible idea. > > > > If you're talking about the ACPI implementation on those machines, > > nobody disagrees :-) > > > > To make sure I understand you correctly, do you advocate for suppressing > > registration of the I2C devices from ACPI and instantiate them from > > board code instead, or to somehow supplement the I2C device with > > board-specific data ? > > No, to repeat yet again that is what I think is a terrible idea. Which of those two ? :-) -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
