On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 11:20:23AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 11/1/23 10:32, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 10:15:52PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> On 10/31/23 17:07, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>> On 10/24/23 18:11, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 06:57:38PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > ... > > > >>> As for the CHT support, I have not added that to my tree yet, I would > >>> prefer to directly test the correct/fixed patch. > >> > >> And I hit the "jackpot" on the first device I tried and the code needed > >> some fixing to actually work, so here is something to fold into v3 to > >> fix things: > > > > Thanks! > > > > But let me first send current v3 as it quite differs to v2 in the sense > > of how I do instantiate GPIO lookup tables. > > The problem is there already is a GPIO lookup table registered for > the "0000:00:02.0" device by intel_dsi_vbt_gpio_init() and there can > be only be one GPIO lookup table per device. So no matter how you > instantiate GPIO lookup tables it will not work. > > The solution that I chose is to not instantiate a GPIO lookup table > at all and instead to extend the existing table with an extra entry. > > Although thinking more about it I must admit that this is racy. > > So a better idea would be to unregister the GPIO lookup > table registered by intel_dsi_vbt_gpio_init() after getting > the GPIOs there, that would allow instantiating a new one > from soc_exec_opaque_gpio() as it currently does and that > would be race free. The proper solution would likely be be to pre-parse the sequences to determine which GPIOs are actually needed. That would also get rid of the bxt_gpio_table[] eyesore. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
