lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v13 7/9] ACPI: Translate the I/O range of non-MMIO devices before scanning
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:19 PM, John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> wrote:
>> Nothing apart from only being used by arm64 platforms today, which is
>> circumstantial.
>>
>>>
>>> I understand you need to find a place to add the:
>>>
>>> acpi_indirect_io_scan_init()
>>>
>>> to be called from core ACPI code because ACPI can't handle probe
>>> dependencies in any other way but other than that this patch is
>>> a Hisilicon ACPI driver - there is nothing generic in it (or at
>>> least there are no standard bindings to make it so).
>>>
>>> Whether a callback from ACPI core code (acpi_scan_init()) to a driver
>>> specific hook is sane or not that's the question and the only reason
>>> why you want to add this in drivers/acpi/arm64 rather than, say,
>>> drivers/bus (as you do for the DT driver).
>>>
>>> I do not know Rafael's opinion on the above, I would like to help
>>> you make forward progress but please understand my concerns, mostly
>>> on FW side.
>>>
>>
>> I did mention an alternative in my "ping" in v12 patch 7/9 (Feb 1), but
>> no response to this specific note so I kept on the same path.
>>
>> Here's what I then wrote:
>> "I think another solution - which you may prefer - is to avoid adding
>> this scan handler (and all this other scan code) and add a check like
>> acpi_is_serial_bus_slave() [which checks the device parent versus a list
>> of known indirectIO hosts] to not enumerate these children, and do it
>> from the LLDD host probe instead (https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/16/250)"
>>
>
> Hi Rafael, Lorenzo,
>
> I can avoid adding the scan handler in acpi_indirectio.c by skipping the
> child enumeration, like with this change in scan.c:
>
> +static const struct acpi_device_id indirect_io_hosts[] = {
> + {"HISI0191", 0}, /* HiSilicon LPC host */
> + {},
> +};
> +
> +static bool acpi_is_indirect_io_slave(struct acpi_device *device)
> +{

Why don't you put the table definition here?

> + struct acpi_device *parent = dev->parent;
> +
> + if (!parent || acpi_match_device_ids(parent, indirect_io_hosts))
> + return false;
> +
> + return true;

return parent && !acpi_match_device_ids(parent, indirect_io_hosts);

> +}
> +
> static bool acpi_is_serial_bus_slave(struct acpi_device *device)
> {
> struct list_head resource_list;
> bool is_serial_bus_slave = false;
>
> + if (acpi_is_indirect_io_slave(device))
> + return true;
> +
> /* Macs use device properties in lieu of _CRS resources */
>
>
> This means I can move all this scan code into the LLDD.
>
> What do you think? Please let me know.

If Lorenzo agrees, that will be fine by me modulo the above remarks.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-15 12:48    [W:0.090 / U:0.432 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site