From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 6/8] gpio: acpi: Explain how to get GPIO descriptors in ACPI case Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 19:11:17 +0300 Message-ID: <1491322277.708.129.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <20170323194618.26548-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20170323194618.26548-7-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20170323202838.GA11818@dtor-ws> <1490719163.708.40.camel@linux.intel.com> <20170329071235.GB38261@dtor-ws> <1490799864.708.50.camel@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:11140 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752518AbdDDQP6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:15:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1490799864.708.50.camel@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Hans de Goede , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mika Westerberg , Jarkko Nikula , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 18:04 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 00:12 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 07:39:23PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 13:28 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 09:46:16PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +Using the _CRS fallback > > > > > +----------------------- > > > > > + > > > > > +If a device does not have _DSD or the driver does not create > > > > > ACPI > > > > > GPIO > > > > > +mapping, the Linux GPIO framework refuses to return any > > > > > GPIOs. > > > > > This > > > > > is > > > > > +because the driver does not know what it actually gets. For > > > > > example > > > > > if we > > > > > +have a device like below: > > > > > + > > > > > +  Device (BTH) > > > > > +  { > > > > > +      Name (_HID, ...) > > > > > + > > > > > +      Name (_CRS, ResourceTemplate () { > > > > > +          GpioIo (Exclusive, PullNone, 0, 0, > > > > > IoRestrictionNone, > > > > > +                  "\\_SB.GPO0", 0, ResourceConsumer) {15} > > > > > +          GpioIo (Exclusive, PullNone, 0, 0, > > > > > IoRestrictionNone, > > > > > +                  "\\_SB.GPO0", 0, ResourceConsumer) {27} > > > > > +      }) > > > > > +  } > > > > > + > > > > > +The driver might expect to get the right GPIO when it does: > > > > > + > > > > > +  desc = gpiod_get(dev, "reset", GPIOD_OUT_LOW); > > > > > + > > > > > +but since there is no way to know the mapping between "reset" > > > > > and > > > > > +the GpioIo() in _CRS desc will hold ERR_PTR(-ENOENT). > > > > > + > > > > > +The driver author can solve this by passing the mapping > > > > > explictly > > > > > +(the recommended way and documented in the above chapter). > > > > > > > > If the driver is not platform specific, then it would have no > > > > idea > > > > about > > > > mapping between _CRS GPIOs and names. All such stuff should be > > > > hidden > > > > in > > > > platform glue (i.e drivers/platform/x86/platform_crap.c). > > > > > > It might be interpreted that all platform data from all the > > > drivers > > > should gone. While ideal case should be like this and I totally > > > agree > > > with you, we are living in non-ideal world, that's why we used to > > > and > > > continue using some ID-based quirks (PCI enumeration, I2C > > > enumeration, > > > ACPI enumeration, SPI enumeration, UART enumeration, an so on, so > > > on). > > > > > > Moreover ACPI comes into ARM(64) world which might have its own > > > troubles > > > with generating correct tables and we might end up with quirks > > > there. > > > > *gasp* I thought ACPI was the magic that would fix all issues with > > cure > > embedded hacks. > > In which version of the spec? I think ACPI r6.2 (anticipating soon) > would have solved a lot of issues regarding GPIO and pin > configuration. > > I also was and is thinking that ACPI has its own strong sides. > > > > > > > So, I disagree that here is possible to hide like you said "all > > > such > > > stuff in ...platform_crap.c". > > > > Well, Hans already posted such patch for select x86 platforms with > > Silead touchscreens. I am sure these platforms have more warts that > > could be added to the same file in platform/x86/... > > So, do we agree on the following paragraph will be added to this > documentation? > > "GPIO ACPI mapping tables should not contaminate drivers that are not > knowing about which exact device they are servicing on. It implies > that > GPIO ACPI mapping tables are hardly linked to ACPI ID of the device in > question and their location is determined solely by location of the > ACPI > ID table." > > > > > > + > > > > > +Getting GPIO descriptor > > > > > +----------------------- > > > > > + > > > > > +There are two main approaches to get GPIO resource from ACPI: > > > > > + desc = gpiod_get(dev, connection_id, flags); > > > > > + desc = gpiod_get_index(dev, connection_id, index, > > > > > flags); > > > > > + > > > > > +We may consider two different cases here, i.e. when > > > > > connection > > > > > ID > > > > > is > > > > > +provided and otherwise. > > > > > + > > > > > +Case 1: > > > > > + desc = gpiod_get(dev, "non-null-connection-id", > > > > > flags); > > > > > + desc = gpiod_get_index(dev, "non-null-connection-id", > > > > > index, flags); > > > > > + > > > > > +Case 2: > > > > > + desc = gpiod_get(dev, NULL, flags); > > > > > + desc = gpiod_get_index(dev, NULL, index, flags); > > > > > + > > > > > +Case 1 assumes that corresponding ACPI device description > > > > > must > > > > > have > > > > > +defined device properties and will prevent to getting any > > > > > GPIO > > > > > resources > > > > > +otherwise. > > > > > + > > > > > +Case 2 explicitly tells GPIO core to look for resources in > > > > > _CRS. > > > > > + > > > > > +Be aware that gpiod_get_index() in cases 1 and 2, assuming > > > > > that > > > > > there > > > > > +are two versions of ACPI device description provided and no > > > > > mapping > > > > > is > > > > > +present in the driver, will return different resources. > > > > > That's > > > > > why > > > > > a > > > > > +certain driver has to handle them carefully as explained in > > > > > previous > > > > > +chapter. > > > > > > > > I think that this wording is too x86-centric. We are talking > > > > about > > > > consumers of GPIOs here (i.e. drivers), which need unified > > > > behavior > > > > between ACPI, DT, and static board properties, they do not > > > > really > > > > care > > > > about _CRS or _DSD. > > > > > > If the certain driver cares about ACPI enumerated devices it might > > > care > > > about supporting it disregarding on how new firmware is used > > > (supporting > > > _DSD or not). > > > > The drivers might care about ACPI enumerations, but they do not care > > about warts of particular platform that chose to implement their > > ACPI > > tables with missing or invalid data. I say that such knowledge > > should > > not go into generic driver, but rather some other entity that woudl > > fix > > up whatever wrong the platform did. It could be an ACPI table > > override, > > or block of code in platform/x86/..., DT overlay, it does not really > > matter as long as we do not litter drivers with hacks for random > > boxes. > > Yes, we used to do that (DMI tables, etc), because there was no > > better > > alternative. Now that we have generic device properties, we have > > better > > ways of addressing these issues. > > See above. > > Otherwise I'm reading something like this: > "If we have platform driverX.c which has DT/platform and ACPI > enumeration, we must split ACPI part out, duplicate a lot of code and > use platform driver as a library." > > Is that what you mean? > > P.S. This all _CRS fallback shouldn't be allowed in the first place. > Now > I'm trying to sort this crap out to nicely work with _DSD enabled > firmwares without breaking devices with *old* firmwares. I see no > other/better way to do such things and I'm open to any _example_ how > it > can be done differently. So, Dmitry, do you have anything to share? I'm about to submit new version and since we at -rc5, I would really go with it. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy