From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: i2c-mux-pca954x ACPI case Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:04:33 +0200 Message-ID: <1490025873.19767.119.camel@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:32533 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754187AbdCTQFu (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:05:50 -0400 Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org 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 Intel Finland Oy