Hi, On 11/1/23 11:34, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > 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. Interesting suggestion. Note that intel_dsi_vbt_gpio_init() arm only runs on byt and cht though, so that is something to keep in mind. Regards, Hans
