Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: x86-android-tablets: fix gpio_secondary_fwnode_init() not working

["Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2250 bytes --]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2026, Hans de Goede wrote:

> Hi Ilpo,
> 
> On 3-Sep-26 13:54, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Sep 2026, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > 
> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 10:11:57PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>> acpi_bus_find_device_by_name() call returns a pointer to the device object
> >>> on the ACPI bus, aka the ACPI companion device.
> >>>
> >>> gpio_secondary_fwnode_init() then continues with setting the secondary
> >>> fwnode on this device. But this is not the actual physical device for
> >>> the GPIO controller (e.g. the GPIO controller platform bus device).
> >>>
> >>> This mismatch is causing GPIO lookups by secondary fwnode to not work.
> >>>
> >>> Modify gpio_secondary_fwnode_init() to instead set the secondary fwnode
> >>> of the first physical device associated with the ACPI companion device.
> >>>
> >>> This fixes the GPIO lookups not working.
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> static int gpio_secondary_fwnode_init(struct device *parent,
> >>
> >>>  		if (WARN_ON(!fwnode))
> >>>  			return -ENOENT;
> >>>  
> >>> -		set_secondary_fwnode(dev, fwnode);
> >>> +		struct device *phys_dev = acpi_get_first_physical_node(to_acpi_device(dev));
> >>
> >> It doesn't look like an auto cleaning pointer, so let's make a declaration
> >> outside of the code?
> >>
> >>> +		if (!phys_dev)
> >>> +			return dev_err_probe(parent,
> >>> +					     -ENODEV, "No physical device for ACPI GPIO dev: %s\n",
> >>> +					     (*swnode)->name);
> >>
> >> Hmm... Why not %pfwP?
> > 
> > Hi Hans,
> > 
> > I'm waiting for v2.
> 
> I see, thank you for quoting Andy's email since it never made the list (1),
> nor did it reach me.
> 
> I'll prepare a v2 addressing Andy's remarks.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Hans
> 
> 
> 1) If you go to:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/platform-driver-x86/20260831201157.36397-1-johannes.goede@oss.qualcomm.com/#r
> 
> it shows a "not found" <apcRAvoHkh9blDwK@black.igk.intel.com> entry, which it
> only knows about because of this reply to it by you (Ilpo).

Yeah, I noticed it didn't end up into patchwork either but figured you'd 
see the content from my reply if the original had failed to reach you.

I've applied v2 now, thanks.

-- 
 i.