On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:27:20AM +0000, Vadim Pasternak wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ingo Molnar [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ingo > > Molnar > > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 2:01 PM > > To: Greg KH <[email protected]> > > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>; Vadim Pasternak > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; platform-driver- > > [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [patch v1] x86/platform/mellanox: introduce support for > > Mellanox > > systems platform > > > > > > * Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:14:26AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Greg KH <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >> This is LPC to I2C bridge. > > > > > > > > > > "LPC"? > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Pin_Count > > > > > > > > "Modern ISA" > > > > > > So my original point stands, 1990's technology being used for brand > > > new devices today, ugh :( > > > > > > Someone needs to go kick some hardware designers... > > > > In their defense, "this is a carbon copy of published 1990s technology" is > > a pretty > > good starting point for a defendant, in patent litigation. > > > > I understood your comments regarding undiscoverable busses. > But we use LPC on all our x86 based systems. > I have to activate all platform related stuff from some place and we > don't support ACPI.
x86 that doesn't support ACPI? That's sad :( > Do you think it would be OK, if I'll remove all PCI related code, make > use of DMI and leave only platform activation code? > If yes, I'll re-work this driver and re-send it for your review. Yes, that sounds like a good start, let's see how the code looks after doing that. thanks, greg k-h
