Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform/x86: i2c-multi-instantiate: Add flag for passing fwnode | From | Hans de Goede <> | Date | Mon, 27 Apr 2020 17:06:03 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
On 4/27/20 3:18 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 3:51 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> 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(). > > Do we know ahead which device should take IRQ resource and which should not? > Can we use current _NONE flag for them?
The problem is not internal to i2c-multi-instantiate.c, the problem (once we pass a fwnode) is the API between i2c-multi-instantiate.c and the i2c-core. For the IRQ_RESOURCE_NONE case i2c-multi-instantiate.c sets board_info.irq to 0, which is the correct way to specify that we do not have an IRQ, but if don't pass an IRQ then the i2c-core will try to find one itself. And once we pass the fwnode, then the "try to find one itself" code will call i2c_acpi_get_irq() and find the same IRQ for clients we instantiate, leading to the earlier mentioned IRQ conflict.
<adding Wolfram + i2c lists to the Cc>
We could set board_info.irq to -ENOENT to indicate that there should not be an irq. But that will get passed to various i2c-drivers, many of which check for an irq like this:
if (client->irq) { ... }
We can avoid this, without needing to change all the drivers by making the i2c-core check for board_info.irq < 0 to skip its own "try to find IRQ" code and then set client->irq to 0 after that check, rather then setting it to board_info.irq = -ENOENT.
If we do that then we can unconditionally pass the fwnode in the i2c-multi-instantiate code.
Regards,
Hans
>> 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). > >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
| |