From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751223AbaKXAoz (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Nov 2014 19:44:55 -0500 Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:51759 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750770AbaKXAoy (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Nov 2014 19:44:54 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Aaron Lu Cc: Lee Jones , Jacob Pan , Yegnesh Iyer , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ACPI / PMIC: AXP288: support virtual GPIO in ACPI table Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 02:06:05 +0100 Message-ID: <1648486.coeVgHKNdn@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.16.0-rc5+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1416553911-22990-4-git-send-email-aaron.lu@intel.com> References: <1416553911-22990-1-git-send-email-aaron.lu@intel.com> <1416553911-22990-4-git-send-email-aaron.lu@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday, November 21, 2014 03:11:51 PM Aaron Lu wrote: > The same virtual GPIO strategy is also used for the AXP288 PMIC in that > various control methods that are used to do power rail handling and > sensor reading/setting will touch GPIO fields defined under the PMIC > device. The GPIO fileds are only defined by the ACPI code while the > actual hardware doesn't really have a GPIO controller, but to make those > control method execution succeed, we have to install a GPIO handler for > the PMIC device handle. Since we do not need the virtual GPIO strategy, > we can simply do nothing in that handler. > > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu > --- > drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic_xpower.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic_xpower.c b/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic_xpower.c > index 6c4d6ce0cff1..480c41c36444 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic_xpower.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic_xpower.c > @@ -251,13 +251,32 @@ static struct intel_pmic_opregion_data intel_xpower_pmic_opregion_data = { > .thermal_table_count = ARRAY_SIZE(thermal_table), > }; > > +static acpi_status intel_xpower_pmic_gpio_handler(u32 function, > + acpi_physical_address address, u32 bit_width, u64 *value, > + void *handler_context, void *region_context) > +{ > + return AE_OK; > +} > > static int intel_xpower_pmic_opregion_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > { > - struct axp20x_dev *axp20x = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent); > - return intel_pmic_install_opregion_handler(&pdev->dev, > - ACPI_HANDLE(pdev->dev.parent), axp20x->regmap, > - &intel_xpower_pmic_opregion_data); > + struct device *parent = pdev->dev.parent; > + struct axp20x_dev *axp20x = dev_get_drvdata(parent); > + acpi_status status; > + int result; > + > + result = intel_pmic_install_opregion_handler(&pdev->dev, > + ACPI_HANDLE(parent), axp20x->regmap, > + &intel_xpower_pmic_opregion_data); > + if (!result) { > + status = acpi_install_address_space_handler( > + ACPI_HANDLE(parent), ACPI_ADR_SPACE_GPIO, > + intel_xpower_pmic_gpio_handler, NULL, NULL); So here we have a problem, because we can't unregister the opregion handler registered above if this fails. Not nice. > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) > + result = -ENODEV; > + } > + > + return result; > } > > static struct platform_driver intel_xpower_pmic_opregion_driver = { > -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.