On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:44 PM Henning Schild
<henning.schild@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Am Fri, 26 Nov 2021 16:02:48 +0200
> schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 3:28 PM Henning Schild
> > <henning.schild@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Am Tue, 30 Mar 2021 14:04:35 +0300
> > > schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 8:59 PM Henning Schild
> > > > <henning.schild@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > > > > +static struct simatic_ipc_led simatic_ipc_leds_mem[] = {
> > > > > + {0x500 + 0x1A0, "red:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-1"},
> > > > > + {0x500 + 0x1A8, "green:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-1"},
> > > > > + {0x500 + 0x1C8, "red:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-2"},
> > > > > + {0x500 + 0x1D0, "green:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-2"},
> > > > > + {0x500 + 0x1E0, "red:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-3"},
> > > > > + {0x500 + 0x198, "green:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-3"},
> > > > > + { }
> > > > > +};
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me like poking GPIO controller registers directly.
> > > > This is not good. The question still remains: Can we simply
> > > > register a GPIO (pin control) driver and use an LED GPIO driver
> > > > with an additional board file that instantiates it?
> > >
> > > The short answer for v4 will be "No we can not!". The pinctrl
> > > drivers do not currently probe on any of the devices and attempts
> > > to fix that have failed or gut stuck. I tried to help out where i
> > > could and waited for a long time.
> >
> > I see, unfortunately I have stuck with some other (more important
> > tasks) and can't fulfil this, but I still consider it's no go for
> > driver poking pin control registers directly. Lemme see if I can
> > prioritize this for next week.
>
> I just sent v4. And am sick of waiting on you. Sorry to be that clear
> here. I want that order changed! If you still end up being fast,
> perfect. But i want to be faster!
It's good that you are honest, honesty is what we missed a lot!
> > > Now my take is to turn the order around. We go in like that and will
> > > happily switch to pinctrl if that ever comes up on the machines.
> > > Meaning P2SB series on top of this, no more delays please.
> >
> > I don't want to slip bad code into the kernel where we can avoid that.
>
> It is not bad code! That is unfair to say. It can be improved on and
> that is what we have a FIXME line for. The worst code is code that is
> not there ... devices without drivers!
Okay, that's how you interpret the term "bad". Probably I had to use
something else to explain that it's racy with the very same case if
one adds an ACPI support to it.
> That is bad, not i minor poke of parts of a resource no other driver
> claimed!
>
> > > We do use request_region so have a mutex in place. Meaning we really
> > > only touch GPIO while pinctrl does not!
> >
> > I haven't got this. On Intel SoCs GPIO is a part of pin control
> > registers. You can't touch GPIO without touching pin control.
>
> i meant pin control, if it ever did probe it would reserve the region
> and push our hack out, or the other way around ... no conflict!
> To get both we just need a simple patch and switch to pinctrl, just
> notify me once your stuff is ready and i will write that patch.
While thinking more on it, the quickest solution here is to do a P2SB
game based on DMI strings in the board code for the platform
(somewhere under PDx86).
> > > I see no issue here, waited for a long time and now expect to be
> > > allowed to get merged first.
> >
> > Okay, I have these questions / asks so far:
> > 1) Can firmware be fixed in order to provide an ACPI table for the pin
> > control devices?
>
> No. The firmware will only receive security but no feature updates ...
>
> > 2) Can you share firmware (BIOS ROM file I suppose) that I may flash
> > on an Apollo Lake machine and see if I can reproduce the issue?
>
> I do not have access. But all you need is a firware with no ACPI entry
> and P2SB hidden. Or simply patch out the two probe paths ;).
Yes, probably that will work.
> > 3) As may be a last resort, can you share (remotely) or even send to
> > us the device in question to try?
>
> We are talking about multiple devices. Not just that one apollo lake on
> which your patches kind of worked.
>
> But showed some weirdness which could really become a problem if
> someone decided to add an ACPI entry ..
Then it should have different DMI strings or so, it won't be the
_same_ platform anymore.
> It pin 42 name could be
> GPIO_LOOKUP_IDX("apollolake-pinctrl.0", 42
> or
> GPIO_LOOKUP_IDX("INT3452:01", 42
> I guess that conflict will have to be dealt with before your can switch
> to probing pinctrl drivers based on cpu model and not only ACPI/P2SB any
> longer.
Not gonna happen.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
