[PATCH v1] x86: acpi: Refactor XSDT handling in acpi_add_table()

From: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [PATCH v1] x86: acpi: Refactor XSDT handling in acpi_add_table()
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:47:09 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPnjgZ37vmrD+SrQSfw3QkQT=mZv3Czuv8vG8r-LXWHzytCMtQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VeUfKnrpc4KqA4=8SQpcnwTKYK3esrdR8w5R-2qYP6eTQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Andy,

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 01:47, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 1:41 AM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 06:00, Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Could you take a look at the ACPI series?
> >
> > It was sent out about a month ago and has a refactor to this function.
> >
> > u-boot-dm/coral-working
>
> There are tons of changes. Care to point what changes are more
> important (generic to all x86)?

I'm not quite sure about that...but x86 patches have an x86: tag, so
perhaps that helps?

>
> P.S. Briefly looking at the last ~30 patches I can say that the idea
> looks good, implementation needs more work. For example, there is
> 'linux,name' property. Shouldn't be referred at all. Linux names and
> other type of enumerations is utterly opaque to the outside world.

How do we add the required linux,name ACPI property into the ACPI
tables for a device?

>
> On top of that, I think we rather need to have a conversion layer than
> putting some names inside DT, like \_SB_.GPO0 should be generated
> automatically from DT node. That said, I don't like DT being polluted
> with non-DT stuff.

Well DT is the configuration mechanism for U-Boot.

\_SB_.GPO0 is a special case since it actually refers to pinctrl (ACPI
seems to make no distinction between pinctrl and GPIO) and this node
is inside p2sb:

pci {
   p2sb at d,0 {
      n {
         gpio-n {

So the automatically generated path would have p2sb in it. The same
work-around is in coreboot.

>
> Also, I'm not sure how your rework helps ARM (or any other
> architecture) people with their approach to ACPI enabling (most of the
> files are under x86).

I kept x86-specific tables in the x86 directories. Of course I might
be wrong about this. But then, people who use ACPI on ARM (ick!)
probably have a better idea on what is needed. The core DM support and
tests are there.

Regards,
Simon