On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:30:27 +0200
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 03:24:11PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 11:35:56 +0200
> > Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 03:11:19AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 15:03:36 +0200
> > > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The commit 0f0796509c07
> > > > >
> > > > > ("iio: remove gpio interrupt probing from drivers that use a single
> > > > > interrupt")
> > > > >
> > > > > removed custom IRQ assignment for the drivers which are enumerated via
> > > > > ACPI or OF. Unfortunately, some ACPI tables have IRQ line defined as
> > > > > GpioIo() resource and thus automatic IRQ allocation will fail.
> > > >
> > > > I'll ask the obvious question - is this allowed under the ACPI spec?
> > >
> > > Yes, it is perfectly fine.
> >
> > I'm unconvinced...
> >
> > >
> > > > > Partially revert the commit 0f0796509c07 to restore original
> > > > > behaviour.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > I really don't like scattering fixes for broken ACPI tables through
> > > > drivers... Is there really no better solution to this?
> > >
> > > This is not about broken ACPI tables. We just currently have
> > > "convenience" stuff in the kernel that translates trivial things like a
> > > single ACPI GpioInt() resource directly to a device interrupt. If the
> > > table has multiple GpioInt()s or uses GpioIo() then it is up to the
> > > driver to handle device specific details.
> >
> > I agree on the multiple cases needing hanlding.
> > What bothers me is that there is no guarantee at all that a GpioIo
> > can even do an interrupt.
> >
> > (table 6.2.17 in the 6.1 spec for example makes it clear that we are
> > in a mess) If it is a gpioio lots of the interrupt specific stuff
> > cannot be supplied (all the stuff in byte 7)
> >
> > So as I read the ACPI specification any interrupt specified as GpioIO
> > is simply broken.
>
> Well, it is the same with DT if you just declare GPIOs as in "xxx-gpios"
> but still use them to trigger interrupts.
>
> Normally you would use GpioInt in ACPI case but sometimes there might
> actually be need to use the GPIO as input/output without interrupts. I
> remember there was some I2C connected touchpanel that required some
> magic to be done when it was put to low power states. In those cases
> GpioIo is more correct IMHO.
>
> It is also possible that the BIOS people just messed this up.
>
> > > > On patches like this best to pull in ACPI and GPIO on the cc list.
> > > >
> > > > Also cc'd Mika who made the original change to support gpioint.
> > >
> > > The patch looks fine to me,
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I'll probably take it anyway to support the platforms doing this particular
> > piece of fun as doubtlessly the chance of fixing the firmware is next
> > to nothing...
>
> Thanks!
Not sure I actually replied to say I had applied this one to the fixes-togreg
branch of iio.git. I certainly hadn't marked it as such locally and
just tried to apply it again ;)
Thanks,
Jonathan
--
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
