From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE86C433E6 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 18:21:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4501B23B5D for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 18:21:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727502AbhANSUV (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2021 13:20:21 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58436 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729791AbhANSUK (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2021 13:20:10 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74EEFC0617A6 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:18:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id y22so7508958ljn.9 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:18:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pJvCZAHLaqoKEh3y+oXgKjwlwnBYnY7borzTim+qS1o=; b=cS4njNwz1nYL1oLQgguEnWk/vDzwqTbhtnDQOGZFDlONuogA+k6cMdUtps27GV41L/ eM8uU49Q5s4mDy3pPtaNcswW/tT9DMGkPJ/mlrPx2a/2GUm7nUZcOq2oV2smZePEhD++ S+YWl3vuAzLSeIEFoL1okEkoP/yPulGSm20Hc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pJvCZAHLaqoKEh3y+oXgKjwlwnBYnY7borzTim+qS1o=; b=N0a4BzZopIollfJdLHwMzolzkALqOyYu3KqRk/i4oDP9TsLwm15VPEV6heo/R9FLGJ tJfYK7PQPIv30CyTKSO0Bz9t6VEXcPF3W8b3A5tBkE0qexYVp/fL48ULvMYgtauC4V5n Ui3C+qVDPoQFJqLqPdFyOhho/ZKTeFCNZI25ThBKHS1DqmaMA7agBbpr5aztrZSLShp6 nAtK6qqxf1eqFrR48eX2wBGhM9P6VKMkh1bvK7FOPbTC39jWAsmC3Alszz10TJhILoiK geEtQnWCLW5UIm9TzI3mA0e1JcpN+CB6KiitRrOoI1bfcesY2tG5LPaVv7LGu8fl1hfJ lTWg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533JpiJC7Qnx82rlUYIKa3CNg7M3OUcSI7C0tGL2q83SyjFUdKR4 OY1PFeXBF9bYxNuZPyNCTQ5QdNFg4DUIfw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzjZld/Un7kj57fBg+KaG5EP/OJv4hUjUI7BQaB2YFQbaOdr/71XoYXsKhqHy2A1G6xYbj3fg== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:5756:: with SMTP id r22mr3742314ljd.481.1610648317503; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:18:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lj1-f171.google.com (mail-lj1-f171.google.com. [209.85.208.171]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q5sm619973lfr.172.2021.01.14.10.18.36 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:18:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lj1-f171.google.com with SMTP id m10so7552091lji.1 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:18:36 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a40b:: with SMTP id p11mr3547850ljn.315.1610648315779; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:18:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201118234025.376412-1-evgreen@chromium.org> <20201118153951.RESEND.v3.2.Idef164c23d326f5e5edecfc5d3eb2a68fcf18be1@changeid> <20210105102505.GG2000@ninjato> In-Reply-To: <20210105102505.GG2000@ninjato> From: Evan Green Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:17:59 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 2/2] i2c: i2c-mux-gpio: Enable this driver in ACPI land To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Peter Rosin , Randy Dunlap , Peter Korsgaard , linux-i2c , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 2:25 AM Wolfram Sang wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:59:12AM -0800, Evan Green wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 7:24 AM Andy Shevchenko > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 1:40 AM Evan Green wrote: > > > > > > > > Enable i2c-mux-gpio devices to be defined via ACPI. The idle-state > > > > property translates directly to a fwnode_property_*() call. The child > > > > reg property translates naturally into _ADR in ACPI. > > > > > > > > The i2c-parent binding is a relic from the days when the bindings > > > > dictated that all direct children of an I2C controller had to be I2C > > > > devices. These days that's no longer required. The i2c-mux can sit as a > > > > direct child of its parent controller, which is where it makes the most > > > > sense from a hardware description perspective. For the ACPI > > > > implementation we'll assume that's always how the i2c-mux-gpio is > > > > instantiated. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI > > > > + > > > > +static int i2c_mux_gpio_get_acpi_adr(struct device *dev, > > > > + struct fwnode_handle *fwdev, > > > > + unsigned int *adr) > > > > + > > > > +{ > > > > + unsigned long long adr64; > > > > + acpi_status status; > > > > + > > > > + status = acpi_evaluate_integer(ACPI_HANDLE_FWNODE(fwdev), > > > > + METHOD_NAME__ADR, > > > > + NULL, &adr64); > > > > + > > > > + if (!ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "Cannot get address\n"); > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + *adr = adr64; > > > > + if (*adr != adr64) { > > > > + dev_err(dev, "Address out of range\n"); > > > > + return -ERANGE; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + return 0; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +#else > > > > + > > > > +static int i2c_mux_gpio_get_acpi_adr(struct device *dev, > > > > + struct fwnode_handle *fwdev, > > > > + unsigned int *adr) > > > > +{ > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +#endif > > > > > > I'm wondering if you may use acpi_find_child_device() here. > > > Or is it a complementary function? > > > > I think it's complementary. The code above is "I have a device, I want > > its _ADR". whereas acpi_find_child_device() is "I have an _ADR, I want > > its device". I could flip things around to use this, but it would turn > > the code from linear into quadratic. I'd have to scan each possible > > address and call acpi_find_child_device() with that _ADR to see if > > there's a child device there. > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > + device_for_each_child_node(dev, child) { > > > > + if (is_of_node(child)) { > > > > + fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "reg", values + i); > > > > + > > > > + } else if (is_acpi_node(child)) { > > > > + rc = i2c_mux_gpio_get_acpi_adr(dev, child, values + i); > > > > + if (rc) > > > > + return rc; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > i++; > > > > } > > > > > > And for this I already told in two different threads with similar code > > > that perhaps we need common helper that will check reg followed by > > > _ADR. > > > > Oh, I'm not aware of those threads. I'd need some advice: I guess a > > new fwnode_* API would make sense for this, but I had trouble coming > > up with a generic interface. _ADR is just a blobbo 64 bit int, but > > DT's "reg" is a little more flexible, having a length, and potentially > > being an array. I suppose it would have to be something like: > > > > int fwnode_property_read_reg(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, > > size_t index, uint64_t *addr, uint64_t *len); > > > > But then ACPI would always return 0 for length, and only index 0 would > > ever work? I'm worried I'm designing an API that's only useful to me. > > > > I tried to look around for other examples of this specific pattern of > > _ADR then "reg", but struggled to turn up much. > > -Evan > > Andy, is Evan's answer satisfying for you? Can this be accepted as-is, or should I resend? -Evan