On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:00:34AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
...
+static int comp_match_tas2781_dev_name(struct device *dev,
- void *data)
+{
- struct scodec_dev_name *p = data;
- const char *d = dev_name(dev);
- int n = strlen(p->bus);
- char tmp[32];
- /* check the bus name */
- if (strncmp(d, p->bus, n))
return 0;
- /* skip the bus number */
- if (isdigit(d[n]))
n++;
Why do you think it can't be two or more digits?
- /* the rest must be exact matching */
- snprintf(tmp, sizeof(tmp), "-%s:00", p->hid);
ACPI can sometimes add :01 suffixes, this looks like the re-invention of an ACPI helper?
Adding Andy for the ACPI review.
- return !strcmp(d + n, tmp);
+}
Yes, this looks like reinventing a wheel. Just compare dev_name() against what is in p->....
...
+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?