Re: [PATCH 2/2] platform/x86: int3472: discrete: Log a warning if the pin-numbers don't match

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

On Mon, 12 Jun 2023, Hans de Goede wrote:

> The INT3472 discrete code assumes that the ACPI GPIO resources are
> in the same order as the pin-info _DSM entries.
> 
> The returned pin-info includes the pin-number in bits 15-8. Add a check
> that this matches with the ACPI GPIO resource pin-number in case
> the assumption is not true with some ACPI tables.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/platform/x86/intel/int3472/discrete.c | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/int3472/discrete.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/int3472/discrete.c
> index 4ef60883154d..c1132bbbff41 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/int3472/discrete.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/int3472/discrete.c
> @@ -149,8 +149,8 @@ static int skl_int3472_handle_gpio_resources(struct acpi_resource *ares,
>  {
>  	struct int3472_discrete_device *int3472 = data;
>  	struct acpi_resource_gpio *agpio;
> +	u8 active_value, pin, type;
>  	union acpi_object *obj;
> -	u8 active_value, type;
>  	const char *err_msg;
>  	const char *func;
>  	u32 polarity;
> @@ -174,10 +174,18 @@ static int skl_int3472_handle_gpio_resources(struct acpi_resource *ares,
>  		return 1;
>  	}
>  
> +	/* Bits 7-0 contain the type/function of the pin */
>  	type = obj->integer.value & 0xff;
>  
>  	int3472_get_func_and_polarity(type, &func, &polarity);
>  
> +	/* Bits 15-8 contain the pin-number on the GPIO chip */
> +	pin = (obj->integer.value >> 8) & 0xff;
> +	if (pin != agpio->pin_table[0])
> +		dev_warn(int3472->dev, "%s %s pin number mismatch _DSM %d resource %d\n",
> +			 func, agpio->resource_source.string_ptr, pin,
> +			 agpio->pin_table[0]);
> +
>  	/* If bits 31-24 of the _DSM entry are all 0 then the signal is inverted */
>  	active_value = (obj->integer.value >> 24) & 0xff;
>  	if (!active_value)
> 

These changes made me wonder why there aren't defines for the fields? 
And then FIELD_GET() used to read the field. Most of those comments 
would be documented by the define name itself.

-- 
 i.