On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:18 AM Mauro Carvalho Chehab
<mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Em Mon, 18 May 2020 09:22:53 +0200
> Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > On 5/15/20 6:28 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 7:52 AM Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> > > <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Asus T101HA, we keep receiving those error messages:
> > >>
> > >> i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm] *ERROR* mipi_exec_pmic failed, error: -95
> > >> intel_soc_pmic_exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element: Not implemented
> > >> intel_soc_pmic_exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element: i2c-addr: 0x5e reg-addr 0x4b value 0x59 mask 0xff
> > >>
> > >> Because the opregion is missing the I2C address.
> > >>
> > >> Suggested-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> ---
> > >> drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic_chtdc_ti.c | 1 +
> > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic_chtdc_ti.c b/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic_chtdc_ti.c
> > >> index 7ccd7d9660bc..a5101b07611a 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic_chtdc_ti.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic_chtdc_ti.c
> > >> @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ static struct intel_pmic_opregion_data chtdc_ti_pmic_opregion_data = {
> > >> .power_table_count = ARRAY_SIZE(chtdc_ti_power_table),
> > >> .thermal_table = chtdc_ti_thermal_table,
> > >> .thermal_table_count = ARRAY_SIZE(chtdc_ti_thermal_table),
> > >> + .pmic_i2c_address = 0x5e,
> > >> };
> > >>
> > >> static int chtdc_ti_pmic_opregion_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >> --
> > >
> > > This appears to be part of a series, but the second patch has not been
> > > CCed to linux-acpi.
> >
> > Mauro send out 3 patches related to the PMIC, this one and 2 MFD patches.
> > I think his intention was to send out this standalone and the 2 MFD patches
> > as a series, but instead he send out this 1 + 1 MFD patch as a series and
> > the other MFD patch as a standalone patch.
> >
> > Either way this patch is a standalone patch, the 2/2 patch is almost
> > completely unrelated, so if you can pick this one up, then that would be
> > great.
>
> Yeah, patch 2/2 is independent of this one. It touches only drivers/mfd/Kconfig,
> addressing a problem when building with INTEL_SOC_PMIC_CHTDC_TI=m.
>
> The third patch for the MFD tree addresses similar issues with drivers that
> register an OpRegion, but won't work properly if compiled as module.
>
> Please pick this one via your tree.
OK, applied as 5.8 material, thanks!
