* i2c-mux-pca954x ACPI case
@ 2017-03-20 16:04 Andy Shevchenko
2017-03-20 16:38 ` Peter Rosin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2017-03-20 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tin Huynh, Peter Rosin
Cc: Wolfram Sang, linux-i2c, Wysocki, Rafael J, Mika Westerberg
The commit bbf9d262a147aeaeee0bf4e1c121166d69e556d4 ("i2c: mux: pca954x:
Add ACPI support for pca954x") adds a so called "ACPI support" for the
driver and thus I have few questions (besides obvious typo in it):
0. Had it ever been tested?
1. Is there *real* DSDT / registered ACPI IDs for a such device(s)?
2. If "yes" on 1, can you provide Documentation with *real* DSDT
excerpt?
If the answer is "no" on 2, I'm about to revert this, because
ACPI is *not* like Device Tree chaotic mess. Any ID, property and
related stuff *must* be officially registered and carefully chosen.
To maintainers of the drivers, including but not limited to I2C
subsystem, please, Cc ACPI guys (Rafael, Mika, me, etc) *before*
applying any ACPI IDs if there no clear and *real* DSDT excerpt.
It's disregard if this case (pca954x) valid or not.
Thank you for understanding.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: i2c-mux-pca954x ACPI case
2017-03-20 16:04 i2c-mux-pca954x ACPI case Andy Shevchenko
@ 2017-03-20 16:38 ` Peter Rosin
2017-03-21 12:18 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2017-03-20 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko, Tin Huynh
Cc: Wolfram Sang, linux-i2c, Wysocki, Rafael J, Mika Westerberg
On 2017-03-20 17:04, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> The commit bbf9d262a147aeaeee0bf4e1c121166d69e556d4 ("i2c: mux: pca954x:
> Add ACPI support for pca954x") adds a so called "ACPI support" for the
> driver and thus I have few questions (besides obvious typo in it):
>
> 0. Had it ever been tested?
> 1. Is there *real* DSDT / registered ACPI IDs for a such device(s)?
> 2. If "yes" on 1, can you provide Documentation with *real* DSDT
> excerpt?
>
> If the answer is "no" on 2, I'm about to revert this, because
> ACPI is *not* like Device Tree chaotic mess. Any ID, property and
> related stuff *must* be officially registered and carefully chosen.
>
> To maintainers of the drivers, including but not limited to I2C
> subsystem, please, Cc ACPI guys (Rafael, Mika, me, etc) *before*
> applying any ACPI IDs if there no clear and *real* DSDT excerpt.
>
> It's disregard if this case (pca954x) valid or not.
>
> Thank you for understanding.
Hi Andy,
I have no idea if PCA9540 etc are valid DSDT entries. Going forward,
I will Cc: ACPI people before taking ACPI patches. Sorry for the
inconvenience and sorry for my ignorance.
But before reverting, let's give Tin a chance to speak up...
Cheers,
peda
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: i2c-mux-pca954x ACPI case
2017-03-20 16:38 ` Peter Rosin
@ 2017-03-21 12:18 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2017-03-21 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Rosin, Tin Huynh
Cc: Wolfram Sang, linux-i2c, Wysocki, Rafael J, Mika Westerberg
On Mon, 2017-03-20 at 17:38 +0100, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2017-03-20 17:04, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The commit bbf9d262a147aeaeee0bf4e1c121166d69e556d4 ("i2c: mux:
> > pca954x:
> > Add ACPI support for pca954x") adds a so called "ACPI support" for
> > the
> > driver and thus I have few questions (besides obvious typo in it):
> >
> > 0. Had it ever been tested?
> > 1. Is there *real* DSDT / registered ACPI IDs for a such device(s)?
> > 2. If "yes" on 1, can you provide Documentation with *real* DSDT
> > excerpt?
> >
> > If the answer is "no" on 2, I'm about to revert this, because
> > ACPI is *not* like Device Tree chaotic mess. Any ID, property and
> > related stuff *must* be officially registered and carefully chosen.
> >
> > To maintainers of the drivers, including but not limited to I2C
> > subsystem, please, Cc ACPI guys (Rafael, Mika, me, etc) *before*
> > applying any ACPI IDs if there no clear and *real* DSDT excerpt.
> >
> > It's disregard if this case (pca954x) valid or not.
> >
> > Thank you for understanding.
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> I have no idea if PCA9540 etc are valid DSDT entries. Going forward,
> I will Cc: ACPI people before taking ACPI patches. Sorry for the
> inconvenience and sorry for my ignorance.
Thank you, Peter.
> But before reverting, let's give Tin a chance to speak up...
Of course! That's why I wrote this message beforehand.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-03-21 12:18 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-03-20 16:04 i2c-mux-pca954x ACPI case Andy Shevchenko
2017-03-20 16:38 ` Peter Rosin
2017-03-21 12:18 ` Andy Shevchenko
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.