> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-i2c-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-i2c- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mika Westerberg > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:55 PM > To: Zhang, Rui > Cc: LKML; linux-pm; linux-i2c; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Len, Brown; > Rafael J. Wysocki; Grant Likely; Dirk Brandewie > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] ACPI: Introduce ACPI I2C controller > enumeration driver > Importance: High > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 03:40:32PM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote: > > +acpi_status __init i2c_enumerate_slave(acpi_handle handle, u32 level, > > + void *data, void **return_value) { > > + int result; > > + acpi_status status; > > + struct acpi_buffer buffer; > > + struct acpi_resource *resource; > > + struct acpi_resource_gpio *gpio; > > + struct acpi_resource_i2c_serialbus *i2c; > > + int i; > > + struct acpi_i2c_root *root = data; > > + struct i2c_board_info info; > > + struct acpi_device *device; > > + > > + if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &device)) > > + return AE_OK; > > + > > + status = acpi_get_current_resources(handle, &buffer); > > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) { > > + dev_err(&device->dev, "Failed to get ACPI resources\n"); > > + return AE_OK; > > + } > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < buffer.length; i += sizeof(struct acpi_resource)) > { > > + resource = (struct acpi_resource *)(buffer.pointer + i); > > + > > + switch (resource->type) { > > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_GPIO: > > + gpio = &resource->data.gpio; > > + > > + if (gpio->connection_type == > ACPI_RESOURCE_GPIO_TYPE_INT) { > > + result = > > + acpi_device_get_gpio_irq > > + (gpio->resource_source.string_ptr, > > + gpio->pin_table[0], &info.irq); > > acpi_device_get_gpio_irq() is not defined in this patch series? > ACPI GPIO controller patch has already been sent out, but in ACPI mailing list only. > Also you need to do the gpio_request()/gpio_to_irq() things somewhere. > Are they handled in acpi_device_get_gpio_irq()? > Yep. > How about GpioIo resources? > This is not covered in this patch set, but will be in the next patch set. > > + if (result) > > + dev_err(&device->dev, > > + "Failed to get IRQ\n"); > > + } > > + break; > > + case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_SERIAL_BUS: > > + i2c = &resource->data.i2c_serial_bus; > > + > > + info.addr = i2c->slave_address; > > + break; > > + default: > > + break; > > + } > > + } > > + > > + add_slave(root, &info); > > + > > + kfree(buffer.pointer); > > + return AE_OK; > > +} > > + > > +static int __devinit acpi_i2c_root_add(struct acpi_device *device) { > > + acpi_status status; > > + struct acpi_i2c_root *root; > > + struct resource *resources; > > + int result; > > + > > + if (!device->pnp.unique_id) { > > + dev_err(&device->dev, > > + "Unsupported ACPI I2C controller. No UID\n"); > > Where does this restriction come from? As far as I understand UID is > optional. > _UID is optional. But it seems to be required for SPB buses that need ACPI device enumeration. At least this is true for the ACPI 5 compatible ACPI tables I have. Thanks, rui
