[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210713182445.GF4098@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 19:24:45 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc: Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add software node support to regulator framework
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 07:06:20PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 05:02:59PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > To make sure I understand you correctly, do you advocate for suppressing
> > > registration of the I2C devices from ACPI and instantiate them from
> > > board code instead, or to somehow supplement the I2C device with
> > > board-specific data ?
> > No, to repeat yet again that is what I think is a terrible idea.
> Which of those two ? :-)
Suppressing the registration data. Frankly the way that ACPI systems
rely so extensively on OS provided fixups on non-server systems while
still being deployed routinely there is also a substantial failure, but
it's not quite so bad.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists