Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.36;
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:05:28 +0300
From:   "Shevchenko, Andriy" <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
To:     "Wu, Wentong" <wentong.wu@intel.com>
Cc:     "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        "oneukum@suse.com" <oneukum@suse.com>,
        "wsa@kernel.org" <wsa@kernel.org>,
        "andi.shyti@linux.intel.com" <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>,
        "broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>,
        "bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org" <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>,
        "linus.walleij@linaro.org" <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-spi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com" <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
        "Wang, Zhifeng" <zhifeng.wang@intel.com>,
        "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 1/4] usb: Add support for Intel LJCA device
Message-ID: <ZS1fSPhfREVlELLD@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <6a87b43a-0648-28d4-6c69-e0f684e44eb6@redhat.com>
 <DM6PR11MB4316BE44F53E276384FF06C88DCCA@DM6PR11MB4316.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <5d2e9eba-a941-ea9a-161a-5b97d09d5d35@redhat.com>
 <ZSmjEKfYzFuAHXW+@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <9a080d06-586d-686f-997e-674cb8d16099@redhat.com>
 <DM6PR11MB43169A9ADDA7681DB7D9347C8DD7A@DM6PR11MB4316.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <ZSzogNhlX9njvOIU@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <DM6PR11MB4316382324D15985A70E531C8DD7A@DM6PR11MB4316.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <2023101653-shiftless-scorebook-19e3@gregkh>
 <DM6PR11MB4316711C71937AE3C0516C7B8DD7A@DM6PR11MB4316.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR11MB4316711C71937AE3C0516C7B8DD7A@DM6PR11MB4316.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 06:44:21PM +0300, Wu, Wentong wrote:
> > From: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 03:05:09PM +0000, Wu, Wentong wrote:
> > > > From: Shevchenko, Andriy
> > > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 08:52:28AM +0300, Wu, Wentong wrote:

...

> > > > But this does not confirm if you have such devices. Moreover, My
> > > > question about _CID per function stays the same. Why firmware is not using
> > it?
> > >
> > > Yes, both _ADR and _CID can stop growing list in the driver. And for
> > > _ADR, it also only require one ID per function. I don't know why BIOS
> > > team doesn't select _CID, but I have suggested use _ADR internally,
> > > and , to make things moving forward, the driver adds support for _ADR here
> > first.
> > >
> > > But you're right, _CID is another solution as well, we will discuss it
> > > with firmware team more.
> > 
> > Should I revert this series now until this gets sorted out?
> 
> Current _ADR support is a solution, I don't think _CID is better than _ADR to both
> stop growing list in driver and support the shipped hardware at the same time.
> 
> Andy, what's your idea? 

In my opinion if _CID can be made, it's better than _ADR. As using _ADR like
you do is a bit of grey area in the ACPI specification. I.o.w. can you get
a confirmation, let's say, from Microsoft, that they will go your way for other
similar devices?

Btw, Microsoft has their own solution actually using _ADR for the so called
"wired" USB devices. Is it your case? If so, I'm not sure why _HID has been
used from day 1...

Also I suggest to wait for Hans' opinion on the topic.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko