On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 2:53 PM Pavel Machek [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed 2021-05-05 16:22:07, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 11:36 AM Jonathan Cameron
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 5 May 2021 09:32:35 +0100
Jonathan Cameron [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 4 May 2021 11:00:52 -0700
Guenter Roeck [off-list ref] wrote:

+Cc: Paul (I hope you are related to coreboot somehow and can
communicate this further), Pavel and Jacek (LED subsystem suffered
with this as well), Hans, Rafael and linux-acpi@

Thanks for Cc. I prefer @ucw.cz address for the LED work.

Noted!

quoted

quoted

quoted

Dropping the ones we are fairly sure are spurious is even better!

If I get bored I'll just do a scrub of all the instances of this that
you haven't already cleaned up.  It's worth noting that we do
know some highly suspicious looking entries are out there in the wild.

I have counted ~60 users of acpi_device_id in IIO. Brief looking at
the IDs themselves rings an alarm about half of them.

As far as I can tell, this means asking "is this real ID or did you
just invent it" at patch submission. Okay...

I would put it in a way that "Please, provide an ASL excerpt / ACPI
tables dump" or something alike. Because it may also show some
additional information that would make sense to consider when adding
an ID to the driver.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko