From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Rosin Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] Revert "i2c: mux: pca954x: Add ACPI support for pca954x" Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:45:58 +0100 Message-ID: <7d5fba14-d3f1-dfaa-ac7d-5001ccf370a1@axentia.se> References: <20170321191310.32957-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <01b7c79e-c52f-8e87-59a8-2eb17a72d733@axentia.se> <1490187942.19767.161.camel@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1490187942.19767.161.camel@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Shevchenko , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Wolfram Sang Cc: Tin Huynh , Richard Purdie , Jacek Anaszewski , Pavel Machek , linux-leds@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-leds@vger.kernel.org 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