On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 06:48:05PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > ACPI 5 introduced SPISerialBus resource that allows us to enumerate and
> > configure the SPI slave devices behind the SPI controller. This patch adds
> > support for this to the SPI core.
> >
> > In addition we bind ACPI nodes to SPI devices. This makes it possible for
> > the slave drivers to get the ACPI handle for further configuration.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/spi/spi.c | 231 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 230 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi.c b/drivers/spi/spi.c
> > index 84c2861..de22a6e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/spi/spi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi.c
> > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
> > #include <linux/sched.h>
> > #include <linux/delay.h>
> > #include <linux/kthread.h>
> > +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> >
> > static void spidev_release(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > @@ -93,6 +94,10 @@ static int spi_match_device(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
> > if (of_driver_match_device(dev, drv))
> > return 1;
> >
> > + /* Then try ACPI */
> > + if (acpi_driver_match_device(dev, drv))
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > if (sdrv->id_table)
> > return !!spi_match_id(sdrv->id_table, spi);
> >
> > @@ -888,6 +893,227 @@ static void of_register_spi_devices(struct spi_master *master)
> > static void of_register_spi_devices(struct spi_master *master) { }
> > #endif
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > +struct acpi_spi {
> > + acpi_status (*callback)(struct acpi_device *, void *);
> > + void *data;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static acpi_status acpi_spi_enumerate_device(acpi_handle handle, u32 level,
> > + void *data, void **return_value)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_spi *acpi_spi = data;
> > + struct acpi_device *adev;
> > +
> > + if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &adev))
> > + return AE_OK;
> > + if (acpi_bus_get_status(adev) || !adev->status.present)
> > + return AE_OK;
> > +
> > + return acpi_spi->callback(adev, acpi_spi->data);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static acpi_status acpi_spi_enumerate(acpi_handle handle,
> > + acpi_status (*callback)(struct acpi_device *, void *), void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_spi acpi_spi;
> > +
> > + acpi_spi.callback = callback;
> > + acpi_spi.data = data;
> > +
> > + return acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE, handle, 1,
> > + acpi_spi_enumerate_device, NULL,
> > + &acpi_spi, NULL);
> > +}
>
> >From my reading of this, the block causes 2 levels of callback
> indirection. First to either acpi_spi_find_child or
> acpi_spi_add_device and second to acpi_spi_enumerate_device. All to
> share about 4 lines of code in acpi_spi_enumerate_device. It took me a
> while to unravel it. I think acpi_spi_find_child and
> acpi_spi_add_device should be passed directly to acpi_walk_namespace.
> Is there anything that prevents that?
No, I'll fix that up in the next version of the series.
> I also agree with the discussion that the actual parsing code for the
> resources should be common,. Retrieving things like IRQs and address
> resources should be function calls into ACPI helpers instead of open
> coding it in the spi core code.
We are working on that and I'm hoping the second version will use the
resources as provided by the ACPI core instead of calling _CRS directly
here.
> Otherwise the patch looks sane to me.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
