On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On systems with ACPI instantiated i2c-clients, normally there is 1 fw_node
> per i2c-device and that fw-node contains 1 I2cSerialBus resource for that 1
> i2c-device.
>
> But in some rare cases the manufacturer has decided to describe multiple
> i2c-devices in a single ACPI fwnode with multiple I2cSerialBus resources.
>
> An earlier attempt to fix this in the i2c-core resulted in a lot of extra
> code to support this corner-case.
>
> This commit introduces a new i2c-multi-instantiate driver which fixes this
> in a different way. This new driver can be built as a module which will
> only loaded on affected systems.
>
> This driver will instantiate a new i2c-client per I2cSerialBus resource,
> using the driver_data from the acpi_device_id it is binding to to tell it
> which chip-type (and optional irq-resource) to use when instantiating.
>
> Note this driver depends on a platform device being instantiated for the
> ACPI fwnode, see the i2c_multi_instantiate_ids list of ACPI device-ids in
> drivers/acpi/scan.c: acpi_device_enumeration_by_parent().
Thanks for an update! My comments below.
> +struct i2c_inst_data {
> + const char *type;
> + int irq_idx;
> +};
> +struct i2c_multi_inst_data {
> + int no_clients;
Name a bit confusing. What about num_clients?
> + struct i2c_client *clients[0];
> +};
> +
> +static int i2c_multi_inst_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct i2c_multi_inst_data *multi;
> + const struct acpi_device_id *match;
> + const struct i2c_inst_data *inst_data;
> + struct i2c_board_info board_info = {};
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + struct acpi_device *adev;
> + char name[32];
> + int i, ret;
> +
> + match = acpi_match_device(dev->driver->acpi_match_table, dev);
> + if (!match) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Error ACPI match data is missing\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> + inst_data = (const struct i2c_inst_data *)match->driver_data;
> +
> + adev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
> +
> + /* Count number of clients to instantiate */
> + for (i = 0; inst_data[i].type; i++) {}
> +
> + multi = devm_kmalloc(dev,
> + offsetof(struct i2c_multi_inst_data, clients[i]),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!multi)
> + return -ENOMEM;
Here I see the following:
- it's kinda unusual use of offsetof(), perhaps i*sizeof() + sizeof()
would be more understandable
- there is no guard against i == 0
To solve both, it might be like
struct i2c_multi_inst_data {
int num_clients;
struct i2c_client *clients;
};
...
multi = devm_kmalloc(sizeof(*multi), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!multi)
return -ENOMEM;
multi->clients = devm_kcalloc(i, sizeof(*multi->clients), GFP_KERNEL);
if (ZERO_PTR_OR_NULL(multi->clients))
return -ENOMEM;
But I would like to hear your (other's) opinion(s).
> +
> + multi->no_clients = i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < multi->no_clients; i++) {
> + memset(&board_info, 0, sizeof(board_info));
> + strlcpy(board_info.type, inst_data[i].type, I2C_NAME_SIZE);
> + snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "%s-%s", match->id,
> + inst_data[i].type);
> + board_info.dev_name = name;
> + board_info.irq = 0;
> + if (inst_data[i].irq_idx != -1) {
>= 0 sounds more robust
> + ret = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get(adev, inst_data[i].irq_idx);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Error requesting irq at index %d: %d\n",
> + inst_data[i].irq_idx, ret);
irq -> IRQ in the message.
> + goto error;
> + }
> + board_info.irq = ret;
> + }
> + multi->clients[i] = i2c_acpi_new_device(dev, i, &board_info);
> + if (!multi->clients[i]) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Error creating i2c-client, idx %d\n", i);
> + ret = -ENODEV;
> + goto error;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, multi);
> + return 0;
> +
> +error:
> + while (--i >= 0)
It can be simple
while (i--)
> + i2c_unregister_device(multi->clients[i]);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int i2c_multi_inst_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct i2c_multi_inst_data *multi = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < multi->no_clients; i++)
> + i2c_unregister_device(multi->clients[i]);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct i2c_inst_data bsg1160_data[] = {
> + { "bmc150_accel", 0 },
> + { "bmc150_magn", -1 },
> + { "bmg160", -1 },
> + {}
> +};
> +
> +/*
> + * Note new device-ids must also be added to i2c_multi_instantiate_ids in
> + * drivers/acpi/scan.c: acpi_device_enumeration_by_parent().
> + */
> +static const struct acpi_device_id i2c_multi_inst_acpi_ids[] = {
> + { "BSG1160", (unsigned long)bsg1160_data },
> + { }
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, i2c_multi_inst_acpi_ids);
> +
> +static struct platform_driver i2c_multi_inst_driver = {
> + .driver = {
> + .name = "I2C multi instantiate pseudo device driver",
> + .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(i2c_multi_inst_acpi_ids),
We don't need ACPI_PTR for the driver which depends on ACPI.
In the general case we have an inconsistency with variable definition
(might be unused).
> + },
> + .probe = i2c_multi_inst_probe,
> + .remove = i2c_multi_inst_remove,
> +};
> +module_platform_driver(i2c_multi_inst_driver);
> +
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("I2C multi instantiate pseudo device driver");
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> --
> 2.18.0
>
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
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
