On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 12:14 PM Henning Schild <henning.schild@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am Mon, 8 Mar 2021 14:20:13 +0200 > schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > There are a few users and even at least one more is coming > > that would like to utilize p2sb mechanisms like hide/unhide > > a device from PCI configuration space. > > > > Here is the series to deduplicate existing users and provide > > a generic way for new comers. > > > > It also includes a patch to enable GPIO controllers on Apollo Lake > > when it's used with ABL bootloader w/o ACPI support. > > That bit is especially interesting. Making pinctl*lake initialize when > ACPI IDs are missing and p2sb is hidden. > > However i have seen pinctl-broxton get confused because it was trying > to come up twice on a system that has the ACPI entries. Once as > "INT3452" and second as "apollolake-pinctrl". They should probably > mutually exclude each other. And the two different names for "the > same"? thing make it impossible to write a driver using those GPIOs. Then it's clearly told that BIOS provides confusing data, it exposes the ACPI device and hides it in p2sb, how is it even supposed to work? I consider only these are valid: - ACPI device is provided and it's enabled (status = 15) => work with ACPI enumeration - no ACPI device provided and it's hidden or not by p2sb => work via board file - no ACPI device provided and no device needed / present => no driver is needed > Unless it would try and look up both variants or not looking up with > gpiochip.label. > > I would also need that "enable GPIO w/o ACPI" for skylake. Not a problem to add a platform driver name there or actually for all of the Intel pin control drivers (depends what suits better to the current design). > I think it > would be generally useful if the GPIO controllers would be enabled not > depending on ACPI, and coming up with only one "label" to build on top. I didn't get what 'label' means here... > > Please, comment on the approach and individual patches. > > > > (Since it's cross subsystem, the PCI seems like a main one and > > I think it makes sense to route it thru it with immutable tag > > or branch provided for the others). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
