On 02/12/2020 09:39, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 08:59:53PM +0000, Dan Scally wrote: >> On 01/12/2020 18:49, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > ... > >>> Seems we can do this, by locating intel_int3472.c under PDx86 hood and dropping >>> ACPI ID table from TPS68470 MFD driver. The PMIC can be instantiated via >>> i2c_acpi_new_device() (IIRC the API name). >>> >>> And actually it makes more sense since it's not and MFD and should not be there. >>> >>> (Dan, patch wise the one creates intel_int3472.c followed by another one that >>> moves ACPI ID from PMIC and introduces its instantiation via I²C board info >>> structure) >> >> I'm mostly following this, but why would we need an i2c_board_info or >> i2c_acpi_new_device()? The INT3472 entries that refer to actual tps68470 >> devices do have an I2cSerialBusV2 enumerated in _CRS so in their case >> there's an i2c device registered with the kernel already. > > Because as we discussed already we can't have two drivers for the same ID > without a big disruption in the driver(s). > > If you have a single point of enumeration, it will make things much easier > (refer to the same intel_cht_int33fe driver you mentioned earlier). > > I just realize that the name of int3472 should follow the same pattern, i.e. > intel_skl_int3472.c Ah! I didn't read intel_cht_int33fe_common.c before, just the typec.c. Having reviewed common I think I'm clear on the method now, thank you :) >> I think we need those things when we get round to handling the >> VCM/EEPROM that's hidden within the sensor's ACPI entry, but I've not >> done any work on that yet at all. > > Let's consider this later — one step at a time. Agree!
