lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 18/18] ipu3: Add driver for dummy INT3472 ACPI device
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 01:32:32AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:07:19PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:31:29PM +0000, Daniel Scally wrote:

...

> > So, something like
> >
> > tps68470.h with API to consume
> > split tps68470 to -core, -i2c parts
> > add int3472, which will serve for above and be standalone platform driver
> > update cio2-bridge accordingly
> >
> > Would it be feasible?
>
> Given that INT3472 means Intel camera power management device (that's
> more or less the wording in Windows, I can double-check), would the
> following make sense ?
>
> A top-level module named intel-camera-pmic (or int3472, or ...) would
> register two drivers, a platform driver and an I2C driver, to
> accommodate for both cases ("discrete PMIC" that doesn't have an
> I2cSerialBusV2, and TPS64870 or uP6641Q that are I2C devices). The probe
> function would perform the following:
>
> - If there's no CLDB, then the device uses the Chrome OS "ACPI
> bindings", and refers to a TPS64870. The code that exists in the
> kernel today (registering GPIOs, and registering an OpRegion to
> communicate with the power management code in the DSDT) would be
> activated.
>
> - If there's a CLDB, then the device type would be retrieved from it:
>
> - If the device is a "discrete PMIC", the driver would register clocks
> and regulators controlled by GPIOs, and create clock, regulator and
> GPIO lookup entries for the sensor device that references the PMIC.
>
> - If the device is a TPS64870, the code that exists in the kernel
> today to register GPIOs would be activated, and new code would need
> to be written to register regulators and clocks.
>
> - If the device is a uP6641Q, a new driver will need to be written (I
> don't know on which devices this PMIC is used, so this can probably
> be deferred).
>
> We can split this in multiple files and/or modules.

Seems we can do this, by locating intel_int3472.c under PDx86 hood and dropping
ACPI ID table from TPS68470 MFD driver. The PMIC can be instantiated via
i2c_acpi_new_device() (IIRC the API name).

And actually it makes more sense since it's not and MFD and should not be there.

(Dan, patch wise the one creates intel_int3472.c followed by another one that
moves ACPI ID from PMIC and introduces its instantiation via I²C board info
structure)

...

> > > + table_entry = (struct gpiod_lookup)GPIO_LOOKUP_IDX(acpi_dev_name(adev),
> > > + ares->data.gpio.pin_table[0],
> > > + func, 0, GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH);
> >
> > You won't need this if you have regular INT3472 platform driver.
> > Simple call there _DSM to map resources to the type and use devm_gpiod_get on
> > consumer behalf. Thus, previous patch is not needed.
>
> How does the consumer (the camera sensor) retrieve the GPIO though ? The
> _DSM is in the PMIC device object, while the real consumer is the camera
> sensor.

1. A GPIO proxy
2. A custom GPIO lookup tables
3. An fwnode passing to the sensor (via swnodes graph)

First may issue deferred probe, while second needs some ordering tricks I guess.
Third one should also provide an ACPI GPIO mapping table or so to make the
consumer rely on names rather than custom numbers.

Perhaps someone may propose other solutions.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-12-01 19:51    [W:0.337 / U:3.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site