Hi,
On 24-05-17 12:27, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 09:58 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Some peripherals on Bay Trail and Cherry Trail platforms signal PME to
the
PMC to wakeup the system. When this happens software needs to clear
the
PME_B0_STS bit in the GPE0a_STS register to avoid an IRQ storm on IRQ
9.
This is modeled in ACPI through the INT0002 ACPI Virtual GPIO device.
This commit adds a driver which registers the Virtual GPIOs expected
by the DSDT on these devices, letting gpiolib-acpi claim the
virtual GPIO and install a GPIO-interrupt handler which call the _L02
handler as it would for a real GPIO controller.
Some issues below, after addressing them
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+config GPIO_INT0002
+ tristate "Intel ACPI INT0002 Virtual GPIO"
+ depends on ACPI
&& X86 (see below why)
This is part of:
menu "Port-mapped I/O GPIO drivers"
depends on X86 # Unconditional I/O space access
So that is already required, which is why I dropped it
(previous versions did have it).
+#include <asm/cpu_device_id.h>
+#include <asm/intel-family.h>
Please, move this after <linux/*> headers with empty line in between.
I'm using alphabetic sort for #includes, I don't see
how these are special its not like they are "local" headers,
e.g. drivers/gpio/gpio-aspeed.c does the same. What if this
driver were to also need acpi/ headers should those go
in their block too, etc. ?
Because you are using specific x86 headers you must depend on X86.
+#include <linux/acpi.h>
+#include <linux/gpio.h>
+#include <linux/interrupt.h>
+#include <linux/io.h>
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/platform_device.h>
+#include <linux/slab.h>
+#include <linux/suspend.h>
+
+/* For some reason the virtual GPIO pin tied to the GPE is numbered
pin 2 */
+#define GPE0A_PME_B0_VIRT_GPIO_PIN 2
+
+#define GPE0A_PME_B0_STS_BIT 0x2000
+#define GPE0A_PME_B0_EN_BIT 0x2000
BIT() ?
Ack.
+#define GPE0A_STS_PORT 0x420
+#define GPE0A_EN_PORT 0x428
+
+static int int0002_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
+ const struct x86_cpu_id *cpu_id;
+ struct gpio_chip *chip;
+ int i, irq, ret;
+
+ /* Menlow has a different INT0002 device? <sigh> */
Perhaps we can remove that all code. I will look at it when I have spare
time.
Even if we remove the code for the INT0002 Menlow device we
still don't want to bind to it, or are you talking about
dropping Menlow support in such a way that newer kernels
will not boot on Menlow at all anymore ?
For now we may go with your code as is.
+ cpu_id = x86_match_cpu(int0002_cpu_ids);
+ if (!cpu_id)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
+ if (irq < 0) {
+ dev_err(dev, "Error getting IRQ: %d\n", irq);
+ return irq;
+ }
+
+ chip = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!chip)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ chip->label = DRV_NAME;
+ chip->parent = dev;
+ chip->owner = THIS_MODULE;
+ chip->get = int0002_gpio_get;
+ chip->set = int0002_gpio_set;
+ chip->direction_input = int0002_gpio_get;
+ chip->direction_output = int0002_gpio_direction_output;
+ chip->base = -1;
+ chip->ngpio = GPE0A_PME_B0_VIRT_GPIO_PIN + 1;
+ chip->irq_need_valid_mask = true;
+
+ ret = devm_gpiochip_add_data(&pdev->dev, chip, NULL);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(dev, "Error adding gpio chip: %d\n", ret);
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ for (i = 0; i < GPE0A_PME_B0_VIRT_GPIO_PIN; i++)
+ clear_bit(i, chip->irq_valid_mask);
+
+ /*
+ * We manually request the irq here instead of passing a
flow-handler
+ * to gpiochip_set_chained_irqchip, because the irq is
shared.
+ */
Linus, I'm just wondering if we can provide generic solution for such
cases (AFAIU this is copied from some of Intel pin control driver, so,
we have two or more users already).
For now let's go with current proposal.
+ ret = devm_request_irq(dev, irq, int0002_irq,
+ IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_NO_THREAD,
"INT0002", chip);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(dev, "Error requesting IRQ %d: %d\n", irq,
ret);
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+
+static const struct acpi_device_id int0002_acpi_ids[] = {
+ { "INT0002", 0 },
+ { },
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, int0002_acpi_ids);
+
+static struct platform_driver int0002_driver = {
+ .driver = {
+ .name = DRV_NAME,
+ .acpi_match_table =
ACPI_PTR(int0002_acpi_ids),
No #ifdef, so ACPI_PTR can be dropped.
Ack.
+ },
+ .probe = int0002_probe,
+};
Regards,
Hans
--
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
