On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 11:16:08AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 19:01:16 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:00:34AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
...
+static void tas2781_fixup_i2c(struct hda_codec *cdc,
- const struct hda_fixup *fix, int action)
+{
tas2781_generic_fixup(cdc, action, "i2c", "TIAS2781");TI ACPI ID is TXNW
https://uefi.org/ACPI_ID_List?search=TEXAS
There's also a PNP ID PXN
https://uefi.org/PNP_ID_List?search=TEXAS
"TIAS" looks like an invented identifier. It's not uncommon but should be recorded with a comment if I am not mistaken.
+}
Thank you, but actually it's a strong NAK to this even with the comment. We have to teach people to follow the specification (may be even hard way).
So where did you get the ill-formed ACPI ID? Is Texas Instrument aware of this? Can we have a confirmation letter from TI for this ID, please?
This is used already for products that have been long in the market, so it's way too late to correct it, I'm afraid.
What we can do is to get the confirmation from TI, complain it, and some verbose comment in the code, indeed.
Oh, no! Who made that ID, I really want to point that at their faces. Look at the Coreboot (successful) case, they created something, but in time asked and then actually fixed the ill-formed ID (that was for one of RTC chips).
For this, please make sure that commit message has that summary, explaining that - states that ID is ill-formed - states that there are products with it (DSDT excerpt is a must) - lists (a few?) products where that ID is used - ideally explains who invented that and Cc them to the patch, so they will know they made a big mistake