Hi Wolfram,

On 01/03/2016 12:45 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 06:49:59PM -0600, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:

On 12/16/2015 8:54 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 08:29:38AM -0600, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:

On 12/16/2015 03:16 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 08:14:34PM -0600, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
Hi Mika,

On 12/15/15 15:55, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
Add device HID AMDI0510 to match the I2C controlers on AMD Seattle platform

Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit<suravee.suthikulpa...@amd.com>
  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 1 +
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c 
index 57f623b..a027154 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
@@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id dw_i2c_acpi_match[] = {
        { "80860F41", 0 },
        { "808622C1", 0 },
        { "AMD0010", 0 },
+       { "AMDI0510", 0 },
        { }

Since this driver seems to be used by several SOCs, and we have been adding
the HID from various SOC vendors. Do you think it would be better to assign
a CID so that each SOC vendor can specify in their ACPI DSDT and we can
match them here?

Sure _CID would work here.

Do you know if Synopsys has already provided a CID that we can use for this?

If not, who do you think should provide this?
Why can't you make _CID for AMD part only? For Intel we are going to get
new IDs for every major SoC release no matter what.

Actually, after discussed with the team. We have decided to go with the
AMDI0510 at this point, and we will reuse this as CID in future SOC if it
contains compatible I2C controller.

So, can I take the patch as is?

Yes, please pull this as is.

Thank you,
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to