Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] Revert "i2c: mux: pca954x: Add ACPI support for pca954x"

[Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>]

On 2017-03-22 14:05, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 11:23 +0100, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2017-03-21 20:13, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> In ACPI world any ID should be carefully chosen and registered
>>> officially. The commit bbf9d262a147 seems did a wrong assumption
>>> because
>>> PCA is the registered PNP ID for "PHILIPS BU ADD ON CARD". I'm
>>> pretty
>>> sure this prefix has nothing to do with the driver in question.
>>
>> [Cc: leds people, in case they know any details]
>>
>> Hmmm, a couple of questions about that "pretty sure"...
> 
> I didn't neither see the *real* excerpt from DSDT nor hear anything
> about official IDs from Phillips.
> 
>> Philips and NXP are pretty much just different faces of the same coin,
>> IIUC.
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> While I might be mistaken, I would like to remove a confusion until we
> get an official confirmation either in *real* existing product on the
> market or letter from Phillips representatives (see above).

Right, I don't disagree with the revert at all. The IDs were
apparently just grabbed and, as you point out, that is not the ACPI
way.

One more question though, the revert (patch 1/2) should probably be
queued up for current (4.11) and sent to stable as well (4.10 is the
only version affected), but what about patch 2/2? Is that 4.12
material or should it too be "rushed"? I feel a bit like I have
been thrown in at the deep end, and could use some guidance...

*snip*

> Thanks for input to this topic. As I said above I might be mistaken too,
> though we can't just wilfully invent ACPI IDs without vendors' approvals
> / confirmations.

Yes, I (now) fully understand that the ACPI namespace is not in our
hands.

*snip*

Cheers,
peda