Re: [PATCH] i2c: tegra: Set ACPI node as primary fwnode

Jon Hunter
2022-11-18T14:41:27Z

On 18/11/2022 14:27, Akhil R wrote:
>> On 18/11/2022 10:18, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 09:38:52AM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 17/11/2022 10:04, Akhil R wrote:
>>>>> Set ACPI node as the primary fwnode of I2C adapter to allow
>>>>> enumeration of child devices from the ACPI table
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zubair Waheed <zwaheed@nvidia.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Akhil R <akhilrajeev@nvidia.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c | 1 +
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
>>>>> index 954022c04cc4..69c9ae161bbe 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
>>>>> @@ -1826,6 +1826,7 @@ static int tegra_i2c_probe(struct platform_device
>> *pdev)
>>>>> i2c_dev->adapter.class = I2C_CLASS_DEPRECATED;
>>>>> i2c_dev->adapter.algo = &tegra_i2c_algo;
>>>>> i2c_dev->adapter.nr = pdev->id;
>>>>> + ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&i2c_dev->adapter.dev,
>> ACPI_COMPANION(&pdev->dev));
>>>>> if (i2c_dev->hw->supports_bus_clear)
>>>>> i2c_dev->adapter.bus_recovery_info =
>> &tegra_i2c_recovery_info;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do we always want to set as the primary fwnode even when booting with
>>>> device-tree? I some other drivers do, but I also see some others ...
>>>>
>>>> if (has_acpi_companion(dev))
>>>> ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&i2c_dev->adapter.dev,
>>>> ACPI_COMPANION(&pdev->dev));
>>>>
>>>> It would be nice to know why it is OK to always do this even for device-tree
>>>> because it is not clear to me.
>>>
>>> ACPI_COMPANION() returns NULL if there is no ACPI companion, which will
>>> cause ACPI_COMPANION_SET() to set the primary fwnode to NULL. If I read
>>> the code for set_primary_fwnode() correctly, that's essentially a no-op
>>> for DT devices.
>>
>> Yes it does, but doesn't it is not clear to me if it is a good idea to
>> pass NULL to set_primary_fwnode(). It does seem to handle this but my
>> biggest gripe is the lack of explanation in the commit message why this
>> is OK.
> I saw ACPI_COMPANION_SET() as an empty function if CONFIG_ACPI is not set.

That's not the issue. By default CONFIG_ACPI is enabled for arm64 but
for Tegra we typically boot with device-tree. So I was more concerned
about the case where ACPI_COMPANION_SET() is not an empty function.

> Yes, I agree that I should have mentioned this in the commit message.
> Shall I send a v2 with the details added in the commit description?

No need, especially as Thierry has already applied. I am not familiar
with this function and primary/secondary fwnodes so wanted to understand
there is no issue for device tree.

Jon

--
nvpublic