On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 11:30:35PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Mika Westerberg > <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 12:25:19AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> CC Mika and Andy. > >> > >> Plus I don't think -stable is going to take your patches directly. > >> > >> On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > The firmware on some cherrytrail devices wrongly adds _ADR 0 to their > >> > entry describing the 80860F14 uid "2" sd-controller. > >> > > >> > I believe the firmware writers intended this as a sdio function address, > >> > but it is in the wrong place for this, so it gets interpreted as a pci > >> > address, causing the node describing the sd-controller used for the > >> > sdio-wifi to get seen as a firmware_node for the pci host bridge, rather > >> > then being stand-alone device. > >> > > >> > This commit adds a byt_sdio_setup function which detects this scenario > >> > and removes the wrong firmware_node link from the pci host bridge, which > >> > fixes acpi_create_platform_device returning NULL, leading to non-working > >> > sdio-wifi. > >> > > >> > BugLink: https://github.com/hadess/rtl8723bs/issues/80 > >> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > --- > >> > drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c > >> > index 373657f..df9cc66 100644 > >> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c > >> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c > >> > @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ static const struct lpss_device_desc lpss_dma_desc = { > >> > }; > >> > > >> > struct lpss_private_data { > >> > + struct acpi_device *adev; > >> > void __iomem *mmio_base; > >> > resource_size_t mmio_size; > >> > unsigned int fixed_clk_rate; > >> > @@ -154,6 +155,33 @@ static void byt_i2c_setup(struct lpss_private_data *pdata) > >> > writel(0, pdata->mmio_base + LPSS_I2C_ENABLE); > >> > } > >> > > >> > +static void byt_sdio_setup(struct lpss_private_data *pdata) > >> > +{ > >> > + unsigned long long adr; > >> > + acpi_status status; > >> > + struct device *dev; > >> > + > >> > + /* > >> > + * Some firmware has a broken _ADR 0 enter for the 80860F14:2 > >> > + * device, which causes it to get seen as the firmware_node > >> > + * for the pci host bridge, rather then a stand alone device. > >> > + * > >> > + * Check if this is the case, and if it is remove the link. > >> > + */ > >> > + if (strcmp(acpi_device_uid(pdata->adev), "2") != 0) > >> > + return; > >> > + > >> > + status = acpi_evaluate_integer(pdata->adev->handle, "_ADR", NULL, &adr); > >> > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) || adr != 0) > >> > + return; > >> > + > >> > + dev = acpi_get_first_physical_node(pdata->adev); > >> > + if (!dev) > >> > + return; > >> > + > >> > + acpi_unbind_one(dev); > >> > +} > > > > IIRC the _ADR 0 problem is not only limited to SDIO devices. I think we > > should just fix the match heuristics in acpi_find_child_device() to > > cover all other devices as well. > > > > Something like below might do the job. > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/glue.c b/drivers/acpi/glue.c > > index 5ea5dc219f56..7cfd48f55b6f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/glue.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/glue.c > > @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static struct acpi_bus_type *acpi_get_bus_type(struct device *dev) > > > > static int find_child_checks(struct acpi_device *adev, bool check_children) > > { > > - bool sta_present = true; > > + bool hid_present, sta_present = true; > > unsigned long long sta; > > acpi_status status; > > > > @@ -98,7 +98,22 @@ static int find_child_checks(struct acpi_device *adev, bool check_children) > > if (check_children && list_empty(&adev->children)) > > return -ENODEV; > > > > - return sta_present ? FIND_CHILD_MAX_SCORE : FIND_CHILD_MIN_SCORE; > > + /* > > + * If there is a _HID or _CID present on a bus that is supposed to > > + * be matched using _ADR, we prioritize those devices without ID > > + * higher. > > + * > > + * This is because there are many BIOSes out there having ACPI > > + * enumerated devices and the _ADR is set to 0. This will match the > > + * root PCI bridge to the first found device with _ADR 0 which is > > + * not always the right device. > > + */ > > + hid_present = !list_empty(&adev->pnp.ids); > > + > > + if (sta_present) > > + return hid_present ? FIND_CHILD_MIN_SCORE : FIND_CHILD_MAX_SCORE; > > + > > + return FIND_CHILD_MIN_SCORE; > > } > > > > struct acpi_device *acpi_find_child_device(struct acpi_device *parent, > > > > I'd rather only change the return statement, like this: > > return sta_present && list_empty(&adev->pnp.ids) ? > FIND_CHILD_MAX_SCORE : FIND_CHILD_MIN_SCORE; > > I'll send a patch tomorrow unless there's something wrong with this. Looks good to me, thanks. > BTW, the comment is not correct too, because the host bridge has a > _HID. What is matched against _ADR(0) is the first function on bus 0 > IIRC. Yes, you are right. -- 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
