lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] platform/x86: i2c-multi-instantiate: Add flag for passing fwnode
From
Date
Hi,

On 4/26/20 7:59 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 1:47 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> In some cases the driver for the i2c_client-s which i2c-multi-instantiate
>> instantiates may need access some fields / methods from to the ACPI fwnode
>> for which i2c_clients are being instantiated.
>>
>> An example of this are CPLM3218 ACPI device-s. These contain CPM0 and
>> CPM1 packages with various information (e.g. register init values) which
>> the driver needs.
>>
>> Passing the fwnode through the i2c_board_info struct also gives the
>> i2c-core access to it, and if we do not pass an IRQ then the i2c-core
>> will use the fwnode to get an IRQ, see i2c_acpi_get_irq().
>
> I'm wondering, can we rather do it in the same way like we do for
> GPIO/APIC case here.
> Introduce IRQ_RESOURCE_SHARED (or so) and
>
> case _SHARED:
> irq = i2c_acpi_get_irq();
> ...
>
> ?

I think you are miss-understanding the problem. The problem is not that
we want to share the IRQ, the problem is that we want to pass the single
IRQ in the resources to only 1 of the instantiated I2C-clients. But if we
do not pass an IRQ (we leave it at 0) and we do pass the fwnode then
i2c-core-base.c will see that there is an ACPI-node attached to the
device and will call i2c_acpi_get_irq().

So the solution is definitely not calling i2c_acpi_get_irq() inside
i2c-multi-instantiate.c we want to avoid the i2c_acpi_get_irq(),
leaving the other 2 clients for the BSG1160 device without an IRQ
and thus avoiding the IRQ mismatch (it is a mismatch because the
drivers do not set the shared flag; and that is ok, we do not want
to share the IRQ, it is just for the accelerometer AFAIK).

Regards,

Hans


>
>>
>> This is a problem when there is only an IRQ for 1 of the clients described
>> in the ACPI device we are instantiating clients for. If we unconditionally
>> pass the fwnode, then i2c_acpi_get_irq() will assign the same IRQ to all
>> clients instantiated, leading to kernel-oopses like this (BSG1160 device):
>>
>> [ 27.340557] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 76. 00002001 (bmc150_magn_event) vs. 00000001 (bmc150_accel_event)
>> [ 27.340567] Call Trace:
>> ...
>>
>> So we cannot simply always pass the fwnode. This commit adds a PASS_FWNODE
>> flag, which can be used to pass the fwnode in cases where we do not have
>> the IRQ problem and the driver for the instantiated client(s) needs access
>> to the fwnode.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/platform/x86/i2c-multi-instantiate.c | 6 ++++++
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/i2c-multi-instantiate.c b/drivers/platform/x86/i2c-multi-instantiate.c
>> index 6acc8457866e..dcafb1a29d17 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/i2c-multi-instantiate.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/i2c-multi-instantiate.c
>> @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@
>> #define IRQ_RESOURCE_GPIO 1
>> #define IRQ_RESOURCE_APIC 2
>>
>> +#define PASS_FWNODE BIT(2)
>> +
>> struct i2c_inst_data {
>> const char *type;
>> unsigned int flags;
>> @@ -93,6 +95,10 @@ static int i2c_multi_inst_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "%s-%s.%d", dev_name(dev),
>> inst_data[i].type, i);
>> board_info.dev_name = name;
>> +
>> + if (inst_data[i].flags & PASS_FWNODE)
>> + board_info.fwnode = dev->fwnode;
>> +
>> switch (inst_data[i].flags & IRQ_RESOURCE_TYPE) {
>> case IRQ_RESOURCE_GPIO:
>> ret = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get(adev, inst_data[i].irq_idx);
>> --
>> 2.26.0
>>
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-27 14:52    [W:0.057 / U:7.724 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site