On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 2:25 AM Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:59:12AM -0800, Evan Green wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 7:24 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 1:40 AM Evan Green <evgreen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Enable i2c-mux-gpio devices to be defined via ACPI. The idle-state
> > > > property translates directly to a fwnode_property_*() call. The child
> > > > reg property translates naturally into _ADR in ACPI.
> > > >
> > > > The i2c-parent binding is a relic from the days when the bindings
> > > > dictated that all direct children of an I2C controller had to be I2C
> > > > devices. These days that's no longer required. The i2c-mux can sit as a
> > > > direct child of its parent controller, which is where it makes the most
> > > > sense from a hardware description perspective. For the ACPI
> > > > implementation we'll assume that's always how the i2c-mux-gpio is
> > > > instantiated.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > > > +
> > > > +static int i2c_mux_gpio_get_acpi_adr(struct device *dev,
> > > > + struct fwnode_handle *fwdev,
> > > > + unsigned int *adr)
> > > > +
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned long long adr64;
> > > > + acpi_status status;
> > > > +
> > > > + status = acpi_evaluate_integer(ACPI_HANDLE_FWNODE(fwdev),
> > > > + METHOD_NAME__ADR,
> > > > + NULL, &adr64);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
> > > > + dev_err(dev, "Cannot get address\n");
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + *adr = adr64;
> > > > + if (*adr != adr64) {
> > > > + dev_err(dev, "Address out of range\n");
> > > > + return -ERANGE;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +#else
> > > > +
> > > > +static int i2c_mux_gpio_get_acpi_adr(struct device *dev,
> > > > + struct fwnode_handle *fwdev,
> > > > + unsigned int *adr)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > I'm wondering if you may use acpi_find_child_device() here.
> > > Or is it a complementary function?
> >
> > I think it's complementary. The code above is "I have a device, I want
> > its _ADR". whereas acpi_find_child_device() is "I have an _ADR, I want
> > its device". I could flip things around to use this, but it would turn
> > the code from linear into quadratic. I'd have to scan each possible
> > address and call acpi_find_child_device() with that _ADR to see if
> > there's a child device there.
> >
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > + device_for_each_child_node(dev, child) {
> > > > + if (is_of_node(child)) {
> > > > + fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "reg", values + i);
> > > > +
> > > > + } else if (is_acpi_node(child)) {
> > > > + rc = i2c_mux_gpio_get_acpi_adr(dev, child, values + i);
> > > > + if (rc)
> > > > + return rc;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > i++;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > And for this I already told in two different threads with similar code
> > > that perhaps we need common helper that will check reg followed by
> > > _ADR.
> >
> > Oh, I'm not aware of those threads. I'd need some advice: I guess a
> > new fwnode_* API would make sense for this, but I had trouble coming
> > up with a generic interface. _ADR is just a blobbo 64 bit int, but
> > DT's "reg" is a little more flexible, having a length, and potentially
> > being an array. I suppose it would have to be something like:
> >
> > int fwnode_property_read_reg(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> > size_t index, uint64_t *addr, uint64_t *len);
> >
> > But then ACPI would always return 0 for length, and only index 0 would
> > ever work? I'm worried I'm designing an API that's only useful to me.
> >
> > I tried to look around for other examples of this specific pattern of
> > _ADR then "reg", but struggled to turn up much.
> > -Evan
>
> Andy, is Evan's answer satisfying for you?
Can this be accepted as-is, or should I resend?
-Evan
