On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 04:06:00PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> +/* Configure some sensible defaults for ACPI mode */
> +static int smsc911x_probe_config_acpi(struct smsc911x_platform_config *config,
> + acpi_handle *ahandle)
> +{
> + if (!ahandle)
> + return -ENOSYS;
> +
> + config->phy_interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII;
> +
> + config->flags |= SMSC911X_USE_32BIT;
> +
> + config->irq_polarity = SMSC911X_IRQ_POLARITY_ACTIVE_HIGH;
> +
> + config->irq_type = SMSC911X_IRQ_TYPE_PUSH_PULL;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +#else
I don't like this and it shows issues we have with ACPI on certain ARM
platforms. You hard-code these values to match the Juno platform. What
if we get another SoC which has different configuration here? For DT, we
have the smsc911x_probe_config_dt() which reads the relevant information
from DT. I think this kind of configuration would be more suitable as
_DSD properties and sharing the similar names with DT (but we go back to
the question about who's in charge of the _DSD properties).
> static int smsc911x_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> + acpi_handle *ahandle = ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev);
> struct net_device *dev;
> struct smsc911x_data *pdata;
> struct smsc911x_platform_config *config = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
> @@ -2436,6 +2464,9 @@ static int smsc911x_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> }
>
> retval = smsc911x_probe_config_dt(&pdata->config, np);
> + if (retval)
> + retval = smsc911x_probe_config_acpi(&pdata->config, ahandle);
> +
In most of the ACPI patches so far we check for ACPI first with DT as a
fall-back if ACPI is not enabled. This changes here. I would prefer
something which probes only ACPI if the ACPI is enabled (run-time, not
config) otherwise DT only. E.g.
--
Catalin
--
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
