On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 01:41:58PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 9:38 PM Asmaa Mnebhi <asmaa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > That's fine, the hardware description model (I guess in your case > > > ACPI) should take care of that. > > > > > We cannot really pass it through the ACPI table because the ACPI > > table is common to all BlueField-2 boards. And each board may have > > a different GPIO pin associated with a particular function. This is > > why we use ACPI properties instead of GpioInt(). So that the > > bootloader can change the GPIO pin value based on the board > > id detected at boot time. > (...) > > Yes. It would belong in the ACPI table if we had a different ACPI > > table for each board. But unfortunately that is not the case. > > You have to agree with Andy about all ACPI details. > > Andy is the ACPI GPIO maintainer and we cannot merge > a patch with any kind of ACPI support without his ACK, > so hash it out as he wants it. The only people on the > planet that can make me think otherwise is if Rafael > Wysocki and Mika Westerberg say something else, > which is *extremely* unlikely. +1 And given this is burried inside a network driver, you are also going to get push back from the networking maintainers to do this correctly. Andrew
