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

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1666 bytes --]

On Thu 2017-03-23 08:45:58, Peter Rosin wrote:
> 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

Sent to stable? What serious bug it fixes?
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]