From: Bruno Ducrot <ducrot@poupinou.org>
To: Johan Vromans <jvromans@squirrel.nl>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC [PATCH] acpi: allow SMBus access
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 14:51:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060703125156.GD17014@poupinou.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m2mzbrj5yp.fsf@phoenix.squirrel.nl>
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 01:14:22PM +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
> Bruno Ducrot <ducrot@poupinou.org> writes:
>
> > I don't think this patch is correct, or else I would have already
> > asked this patch being added to mainline.
>
> You've been standing at the origins of where this patch came from. Can
> you provide a better alternative?
>
If you want this patch to be applied, I think you should at least
mark ec_read/ec_write being obsolete and maybe provide a
solution for drivers who use those functions, as for example
sonypi. Having two very same kind of access for the EC is
not good IMHO.
In fact why I didn't submitted this patch myself is because
I wanted to provide a real bus access via the EC driver, including
the interrupt driven ones.
Something like that :
int acpi_ec_register(struct acpi_ec_driver *child);
int acpi_ec_unregister(struct acpi_ec_driver *child);
The struct acpi_ec_driver should be something like that:
struct acpi_ec_driver {
acpi_handle ec_handle;
acpi_handle handle;
unsigned long uid;
unsigned long query;
int (*acpi_ec_query_handler) (???);
...
/* maybe a private space somewhere */
void *private;
}
reading/writing may pass perhaps via an exported acpi_ec_(read|write)()
functions, but the real key would have to be able to register a function
in order to trigger the acpi_ec_query_handler function member when the EC
receive the interrupt for the query number ->query instead of the _Qxx
method provided by the OEM. Please look at ACPI 3.0 specification,
more precisely "5.6.2.2.2 Dispatching to an ACPI-aware Device Driver",
and the whole chapter 12 (ACPI Embedded Controller Interface Specification).
We may have then an access to the ACPI EC HC SMbus with a interrupt
driven driver, which imho is the correct approach: we will be sure
a _Qxx method provided by the bios writer will interferre with our
SMbus driver.
Unfortunately I don't have anymore the time to provide this support
for Linux.
--
Bruno Ducrot
-- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy?
-- Don't know. Don't care.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-07-03 12:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-07-02 21:12 RFC [PATCH] acpi: allow SMBus access Johan Vromans
2006-07-03 1:51 ` Yu Luming
2006-07-03 8:22 ` Bruno Ducrot
2006-07-03 8:22 ` Bruno Ducrot
2006-07-03 11:14 ` Johan Vromans
2006-07-03 12:51 ` Bruno Ducrot [this message]
2006-07-04 8:09 ` Johan Vromans
2006-07-04 9:35 ` Bruno Ducrot
2006-07-04 11:44 ` Johan Vromans
2006-07-06 13:58 ` Johan Vromans
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=20060703125156.GD17014@poupinou.org \
--to=ducrot@poupinou.org \
--cc=jvromans@squirrel.nl \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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