On Monday 01 September 2014 18:04:47 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 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).
Good point, I totally missed that.
There is of course the possibility to set those values based on the
acpi_device_id, but that is exactly the part that _DSD is trying to
avoid.
> > 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.
Does this really make a difference?
> I would prefer
> something which probes only ACPI if the ACPI is enabled (run-time, not
> config) otherwise DT only. E.g.
(example missing?)
I think we should have the equivalent of of_have_populated_dt(), to
check whether acpi is being used to boot, and have that new function
be hardcoded to zero in case of !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI).
Arnd
--
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
