Hi Mika > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-pci-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-pci- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gabriele Paoloni > Sent: 19 June 2017 11:05 > To: Mika Westerberg > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki; Lorenzo Pieralisi; Rafael J. Wysocki; > catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx; will.deacon@xxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; > frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; arnd@xxxxxxxx; linux-arm- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; > brian.starkey@xxxxxxx; olof@xxxxxxxxx; benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linuxarm; linux- > pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; minyard@xxxxxxx; John Garry; xuwei (O) > Subject: RE: [PATCH v9 5/7] ACPI: Translate the I/O range of non-MMIO > devices before scanning > > Hi Mika > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mika Westerberg [mailto:mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: 19 June 2017 11:02 > > To: Gabriele Paoloni > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki; Lorenzo Pieralisi; Rafael J. Wysocki; > > catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx; will.deacon@xxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; > > frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; arnd@xxxxxxxx; linux- > arm- > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; > > brian.starkey@xxxxxxx; olof@xxxxxxxxx; benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux- > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linuxarm; linux- > > pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; minyard@xxxxxxx; John Garry; xuwei (O) > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 5/7] ACPI: Translate the I/O range of non-MMIO > > devices before scanning > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:50:49AM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote: > > > Many thanks for your response and your help here. > > > > > > I guess that as conclusion with respect to the current v9 patchset > we > > can > > > disregard the idea of MFD and modify the current v9 so that it > > doesn't > > > touch directly ACPI resources. > > > Instead as I proposed before we can have the scan handler to > > enumerate > > > the children devices and translate its addresses filling dev- > > >resources[] and > > > at the same time we can modify acpi_default_enumeration to check > > > acpi_device_enumerated() before continuing with device > > enumeration...? > > > > > > Do you think it as a viable solution? > > > > No, I think MFD + scan handler inside the MFD driver is the way to > go. > > We don't want to trash ACPI core with stuff that does not belong > there > > IMHO. > > Ok Many thanks I will investigate this direction I had a look into the MFD framework. If my understanding is correct the mfd framework create a platform device for each declared mfd_cell that is passed to mfd_add_devices(). However there is something that I do not quite understand: from http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/mfd/mfd-core.c#L207 it seems that mfd_add_device() will create the platform device using the resources that are statically declared in the respective mfd_cell. In my case I'd like to have a platform device using the resources that are parsed from the ACPI table (i.e. as it is done now by acpi_create_platform_device()). If my understanding is correct, if I declared an mfd_cell for my IPMI child the mfd subsystem would create a platform device for such child and therefore acpi_create_platform_device() would fail to create a new platform device as adev->physical_node_count will be non zero. However as things stand now mfd_cell devices can only use the resources that are statically defined in the code (and therefore not the ones in the ACPI nodes)...am I right? Thanks Gab > > > > > Also you don't need to modify acpi_default_enumeration() because you > > can > > mark your device enumerated in the MFD driver. So all the dirty > details > > will be in the MFD driver and not in ACPI core. > > Ok got it :) > > Cheers > Gab -- 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
