On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 10:05:26AM -0800, David Cohen wrote: >> It looks we have an implicit dependency to GPIO driver in Bay Trail, and >> having this window until load the module is not acceptable to fulfill >> this implicit dependency. > > It is not implicit at all. > > The user of the GPIO in ACPI DSDT table says something like: > > Name (_DEP, Package () { \_SB.GPO2 }) > > or similar. That is *explicit* dependency. Here \_SB.GPO2 is one of the > GPIO banks. That's very nice for ACPI. But what do you expect the Linux kernel to do with that? Basically that is just like getting an -EPROBE_DEFER from the gpiochip when the gpiod_get() call is issued, and you have to wait because the gpiochip is not probed yet. We can solve that at runtime right? I had a discussion with Greg the other day that we have no way of expressing inside the kernel that a resource such as a GPIO, a pin, a clk or a regulator is used by some module. It's just a synchronous gpiod_get() or whatever call, then there is a warning if you remove a gpiochip with gpios still in use. What is needed to make use of such a dependency mechanism is a way to graph the dependencies between kernel drivers and the resources (gpios, clocks, regulators...) they provide to other drivers, so this information can be used when probing, removing, powering up/down the cluster. That problem needs to be solved in the device core, until then there is not way to actually use that ACPI _DEP property for what I can tell. (On a side note: whoever came up with the idea that ACPI props be 4 characters wide and start with an underscore and this backslash obfuscation needs to... think differently.) Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html