From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@infradead.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform/x86: i2c-multi-instantiate: Add flag for passing fwnode
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:51:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b5bdffb4-0af2-abb7-21f7-2f5da56d5dc6@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VdOd6C36oR7HAnqrKiinVBr4YcqqJ=dv3NpR3=Xp0QQ-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On 4/26/20 7:59 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 1:47 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> In some cases the driver for the i2c_client-s which i2c-multi-instantiate
>> instantiates may need access some fields / methods from to the ACPI fwnode
>> for which i2c_clients are being instantiated.
>>
>> An example of this are CPLM3218 ACPI device-s. These contain CPM0 and
>> CPM1 packages with various information (e.g. register init values) which
>> the driver needs.
>>
>> Passing the fwnode through the i2c_board_info struct also gives the
>> i2c-core access to it, and if we do not pass an IRQ then the i2c-core
>> will use the fwnode to get an IRQ, see i2c_acpi_get_irq().
>
> I'm wondering, can we rather do it in the same way like we do for
> GPIO/APIC case here.
> Introduce IRQ_RESOURCE_SHARED (or so) and
>
> case _SHARED:
> irq = i2c_acpi_get_irq();
> ...
>
> ?
I think you are miss-understanding the problem. The problem is not that
we want to share the IRQ, the problem is that we want to pass the single
IRQ in the resources to only 1 of the instantiated I2C-clients. But if we
do not pass an IRQ (we leave it at 0) and we do pass the fwnode then
i2c-core-base.c will see that there is an ACPI-node attached to the
device and will call i2c_acpi_get_irq().
So the solution is definitely not calling i2c_acpi_get_irq() inside
i2c-multi-instantiate.c we want to avoid the i2c_acpi_get_irq(),
leaving the other 2 clients for the BSG1160 device without an IRQ
and thus avoiding the IRQ mismatch (it is a mismatch because the
drivers do not set the shared flag; and that is ok, we do not want
to share the IRQ, it is just for the accelerometer AFAIK).
Regards,
Hans
>
>>
>> This is a problem when there is only an IRQ for 1 of the clients described
>> in the ACPI device we are instantiating clients for. If we unconditionally
>> pass the fwnode, then i2c_acpi_get_irq() will assign the same IRQ to all
>> clients instantiated, leading to kernel-oopses like this (BSG1160 device):
>>
>> [ 27.340557] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 76. 00002001 (bmc150_magn_event) vs. 00000001 (bmc150_accel_event)
>> [ 27.340567] Call Trace:
>> ...
>>
>> So we cannot simply always pass the fwnode. This commit adds a PASS_FWNODE
>> flag, which can be used to pass the fwnode in cases where we do not have
>> the IRQ problem and the driver for the instantiated client(s) needs access
>> to the fwnode.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/platform/x86/i2c-multi-instantiate.c | 6 ++++++
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/i2c-multi-instantiate.c b/drivers/platform/x86/i2c-multi-instantiate.c
>> index 6acc8457866e..dcafb1a29d17 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/i2c-multi-instantiate.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/i2c-multi-instantiate.c
>> @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@
>> #define IRQ_RESOURCE_GPIO 1
>> #define IRQ_RESOURCE_APIC 2
>>
>> +#define PASS_FWNODE BIT(2)
>> +
>> struct i2c_inst_data {
>> const char *type;
>> unsigned int flags;
>> @@ -93,6 +95,10 @@ static int i2c_multi_inst_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "%s-%s.%d", dev_name(dev),
>> inst_data[i].type, i);
>> board_info.dev_name = name;
>> +
>> + if (inst_data[i].flags & PASS_FWNODE)
>> + board_info.fwnode = dev->fwnode;
>> +
>> switch (inst_data[i].flags & IRQ_RESOURCE_TYPE) {
>> case IRQ_RESOURCE_GPIO:
>> ret = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get(adev, inst_data[i].irq_idx);
>> --
>> 2.26.0
>>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-27 12:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-26 10:47 [PATCH 0/2] ACPI / scan: Create platform device for CPLM3218 ACPI nodes Hans de Goede
2020-04-26 10:47 ` [PATCH 1/2] platform/x86: i2c-multi-instantiate: Add flag for passing fwnode Hans de Goede
2020-04-26 17:59 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-04-27 12:51 ` Hans de Goede [this message]
2020-04-27 13:18 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-04-27 15:06 ` Hans de Goede
2020-04-27 17:33 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-04-27 17:55 ` Hans de Goede
2020-04-27 18:29 ` Hans de Goede
2020-04-26 10:47 ` [PATCH 2/2] ACPI / scan: Create platform device for CPLM3218 ACPI nodes Hans de Goede
2020-04-26 12:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b5bdffb4-0af2-abb7-21f7-2f5da56d5dc6@redhat.com \
--to=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
--cc=andy@infradead.org \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox