On 01/25/2018 08:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Auger Eric <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> If I2C is built as a module, ACPI_I2C_OPREGION cannot be set
>> and any ACPI opregion calls targeting I2C fail with no opregion found.
>>
>> Commit da3c6647ee08 ("I2C/ACPI: Clean up I2C ACPI code and Add
>> CONFIG_I2C_ACPI config") says following:
>>
>> "Current there is a race between removing I2C ACPI operation region
>> and ACPI AML code accessing."
>>
>> This patch forces core I2C support to be compiled as a built-in
>> module if ACPI is selected as code is not ready for dynamic module
>> removal.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>> index 4650539..5b48098 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ menuconfig ACPI
>> depends on IA64 || X86 || ARM64
>> depends on PCI
>> select PNP
>> + # force building I2C in on ACPI systems, for opregion availability
>> + imply I2C
>> default y if (IA64 || X86)
>> help
>> Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) support for
>> --
>
> I'm not sure how much this helps.
>
> I2C opregions will only work if the requisite I2C controller driver is
> present anyway and this change doesn't guarantee that AFAICS.
>
> OTOH, there are systems using ACPI without I2C opregions, so are we
> really better off by forcing everybody using ACPI to also build I2C?
Definitely not.
--
~Randy
--
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
