i2c-mux-pca954x ACPI case
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.
Signature · 2 lines
Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> Intel Finland Oy
Quoted 13 lines · Andy Shevchenko
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.
Quoted 7 lines
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
Quoted 22 lines · Peter Rosin
Quoted 21 lines · Andy Shevchenko
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.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
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.
Quoted 1 line
But before reverting, let's give Tin a chance to speak up...
Of course! That's why I wrote this message beforehand.
Signature · 2 lines
Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> Intel Finland Oy