On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:39:35PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 24.04.19 12:33, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:19:02PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > > I think what you want is "GPIO signaled ACPI event". It works so that > > > > you declare _AEI method below the GPIO controller listing the GPIOs you > > > > want to trigger events for and then either _Lxx, _Exx or _EVT method for > > > > each of them under the same controller. GPIO core then handles it > > > > automatically when you register the GPIO chip. See also > > > > acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(). > > > > > > Right, that is was I read as well. Let's assume I would be able to patch the > > > tables: Would I describe all the logic of this patch in ACPI terms? Where to > > > enable interrupts, how to dispatch the SCI event, how to acknowledge it > > > etc.? Will it also take care of locking? (BTW, my locking seems to have some > > > remaining inconsistency, on second look.) > > > > The GPIO core would then take care of it by requesting the GPIO in > > question and dispatching to the correct event handler. In this patch you > > just leave out the SCI part and only implement the irqchip like you did > > already. > > Could you point me to a gpio driver that works like that already? Would be > easier to learn that from an example. That infrastructure with all its > different modes is seriously complex and not very well documented. Pretty much all drivers under drivers/pinctrl/intel. > > > And even if that were possible, we would be back to the square of existing > > > devices without those definitions. If this were a recent chipset, I would > > > say, "go, fix future firmware versions". But this one is legacy. > > > > Is it fixing some real issue with these legacy platforms? I mean without > > the patch some GPE event is not handled properly? It was not clear to me > > from the commit message. > > > Without that patch, you are forced to poll for event changes in your > application, timer-driven. There are application that cannot process these > GPIOs because they lack such logic (mraa with node-red-node-intel-gpio is a > public example). But those are using the GPIOs via sysfs or the char device which should work without the SCI handling part of your patch, no?