lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ACPI / PNP: Don't add "enumeration_by_parent" devices
From
Date
On 20/04/2018 14:52, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 02:24:18PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
>> Hi Mika,
>>
>> On 20/04/2018 14:07, Mika Westerberg wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 06:07:25PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + device->driver_data = dev;
>>>
>>> I think this deserves a comment explaining why we (ab)use driver_data
>>> like this.
>>
>> Sure, could add. I didn't see any other way for the acpi_device structure to
>> reference the derived PNP device.
>>
>> TBH, This overall approach is not good since we are creating the PNP device
>> in the scan, and then leaving the device in limbo, waiting for the parent to
>> add it, if at all. There's no rule for this.
>>
>> So I'm looking for ideas on how to improve this.
>

Hi Mika,

> One idea is to make pnpacpi_add_device() available outside of PNP and
> call it directly (or some variation) in hisi_lpc.c when it walks over
> its children.
>

I did consider this initially and it seems quite straightforward.

However I think the problem is that we would need to modify the
acpi_device child resources from FW with kernel-specific resources,
which does not seem right (I think that is what you meant). As I see,
this is one reason that we went in the direction of modelling the host
as an MFD, as we could set the resources of the mfd_cells.

So adding a variant of pnpacpi_add_device() could work, or modifying
pnpacpi_add_device() to accept a callback to translate the resources.
But this feature is specific to our very special requirement...

Thanks,
John

> .
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-20 16:10    [W:0.089 / U:0.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site