On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 2:02 PM Dan Scally <djrscally@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 16/11/2020 16:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 02:15:01PM +0000, Dan Scally wrote:
> >> On 16/11/2020 14:10, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> I thought we were looking for ACPI devices, not companion devices, in
> >>> order to extract information from the DSDT and store it in a software
> >>> node. I could very well be wrong though.
> >> This is correct - the code to fetch the various resources we're looking
> >> at all uses acpi_device. Whether using Andy's iterator suggestions or
> >> previous bus_for_each_dev(&acpi_bus_type...) I'm just getting the
> >> acpi_device via to_acpi_dev() and using that.
> > If you try to get an I²C ore SPI device out of pure ACPI device (with given
> > APCI _HID) you will fail. So, it's not correct. You are retrieving companion
> > devices, while they are still in the struct acpi_device.
> >
> > And don't ask me, why it's so. I wasn't designed that and didn't affect any
> > decision made there.
>
> Well, in terms of the actual device we're getting, I don't think we're
> fundamentally doing anything different between the methods...unless I'm
> really mistaken.
>
>
> Originally implementation was like:
>
>
> const char *supported_devices[] = {
>
> "OVTI2680",
>
> };
>
>
> static int cio2_bridge_connect_supported_devices(void)
>
> {
>
> struct acpi_device *adev;
>
> int i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(supported_devices); i++) {
>
> adev =
> acpi_dev_get_first_match_dev(supported_devices[i], NULL, -1);
>
> ...
>
> }
>
>
> and acpi_dev_get_first_match_dev() likewise just returns adev via
> to_acpi_device(dev).
>
>
> So, maybe we don't need to do the iterating over all devices with
> matching _HID at all, in which case it can be dropped, but if we're
> doing it then I can't see that it's different to the original
> implementation in terms of the struct acpi_device we're working with or
> the route taken to get it.
>
>
> Either way; ACPI maintainers asked to be CC'd on the next patchset
> anyway, so they'll see what we're doing and be able to weigh in.
Implementation wise the two approaches are quite similar for now, indeed.
I would rather go with an iterator approach for a simple reason, EFI
code already has something which may utilize iterators rather than
using their home grown solution.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
