On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Nikolaus Voss > <nikolaus.v...@loewensteinmedical.de> wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> On 04/07/18 10:32, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Srinath Mannam >>>> <srinath.man...@broadcom.com> wrote: > >>> +1 on NACK for this and anything else that abuse PRP0001 as a short cut >>> approach. >> This is no abuse but exactly what PRP0001 is meant for. The basic idea of >> PRP0001 is to reuse DT "compatible" strings in ACPI namespace, see >> Documentation/acpi/enumeration.txt. Reusing also means getting access to the >> of_device_id. > > The idea was for almost DIY and / or manufacturer to develop a > prototype without modifying match code and faking ACPI IDs. > That's why the target of PRP0001 is almost sensors connected to I2C and SPI. > > That's why I agreed on your patch to help with this. But! The proper > solution for the devices (device manufacturer) is to allocate an ACPI > ID and provide a corresponding table to the driver. > > This is my understanding of that exercise. Rafael can correct me.
You are right. >> Allocating an ACPI id for an already existing DT driver is redundant, isn't >> it? > > It is not. Again, right. Thanks, Rafael
