lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v13 7/9] ACPI: Translate the I/O range of non-MMIO devices before scanning
From
Date
On 15/02/2018 11:47, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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:
>>

Hi Rafael,

>> +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?
>

I can do.

>> + 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);

Fine, a bit more concise

>
>> +}
>> +
>> 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.
>
> .

I see Lorenzo also finds this ok, so I'll go with that.

Thanks to all,
John

>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-15 14:00    [W:0.101 / U:6.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site