On 2018-08-08 11:08, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On systems with ACPI instantiated i2c-clients, normally there is 1 fw_node
>> per i2c-device and that fw-node contains 1 I2cSerialBus resource for that 1
>> i2c-device.
>>
>> But in some rare cases the manufacturer has decided to describe multiple
>> i2c-devices in a single ACPI fwnode with multiple I2cSerialBus resources.
>>
>> An earlier attempt to fix this in the i2c-core resulted in a lot of extra
>> code to support this corner-case.
>>
>> This commit introduces a new i2c-multi-instantiate driver which fixes this
>> in a different way. This new driver can be built as a module which will
>> only loaded on affected systems.
>>
>> This driver will instantiate a new i2c-client per I2cSerialBus resource,
>> using the driver_data from the acpi_device_id it is binding to to tell it
>> which chip-type (and optional irq-resource) to use when instantiating.
>>
>> Note this driver depends on a platform device being instantiated for the
>> ACPI fwnode, see the i2c_multi_instantiate_ids list of ACPI device-ids in
>> drivers/acpi/scan.c: acpi_device_enumeration_by_parent().
>
> Thanks for an update! My comments below.
>
>> +struct i2c_inst_data {
>> + const char *type;
>> + int irq_idx;
>> +};
>
>> +struct i2c_multi_inst_data {
>
>> + int no_clients;
>
> Name a bit confusing. What about num_clients?
>
>> + struct i2c_client *clients[0];
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int i2c_multi_inst_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> + struct i2c_multi_inst_data *multi;
>> + const struct acpi_device_id *match;
>> + const struct i2c_inst_data *inst_data;
>> + struct i2c_board_info board_info = {};
>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>> + struct acpi_device *adev;
>> + char name[32];
>> + int i, ret;
>> +
>> + match = acpi_match_device(dev->driver->acpi_match_table, dev);
>> + if (!match) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "Error ACPI match data is missing\n");
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> + }
>> + inst_data = (const struct i2c_inst_data *)match->driver_data;
>> +
>> + adev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
>> +
>
>> + /* Count number of clients to instantiate */
>> + for (i = 0; inst_data[i].type; i++) {}
>> +
>> + multi = devm_kmalloc(dev,
>> + offsetof(struct i2c_multi_inst_data, clients[i]),
>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!multi)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>
> Here I see the following:
> - it's kinda unusual use of offsetof(), perhaps i*sizeof() + sizeof()
> would be more understandable
> - there is no guard against i == 0
I don't see why a guard is needed? *Your* code below needs it, but that
issue is not a concern for the original code. It might however be a
good idea to fail the probe if there are no clients to instantiate, but
that's a different issue...
>
> To solve both, it might be like
>
> struct i2c_multi_inst_data {
> int num_clients;
> struct i2c_client *clients;
> };
>
> ...
> multi = devm_kmalloc(sizeof(*multi), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!multi)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> multi->clients = devm_kcalloc(i, sizeof(*multi->clients), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (ZERO_PTR_OR_NULL(multi->clients))
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> But I would like to hear your (other's) opinion(s).
I think using two allocations is a waste in this case.
>
>> +
>> + multi->no_clients = i;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < multi->no_clients; i++) {
>> + memset(&board_info, 0, sizeof(board_info));
>> + strlcpy(board_info.type, inst_data[i].type, I2C_NAME_SIZE);
>> + snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "%s-%s", match->id,
>> + inst_data[i].type);
>> + board_info.dev_name = name;
>> + board_info.irq = 0;
>
>> + if (inst_data[i].irq_idx != -1) {
>
>> = 0 sounds more robust
But not as flexible/future-proof. Why should 0 be the only valid IRQ index?
Cheers,
Peter
>> + ret = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get(adev, inst_data[i].irq_idx);
>> + if (ret < 0) {
>
>> + dev_err(dev, "Error requesting irq at index %d: %d\n",
>> + inst_data[i].irq_idx, ret);
>
> irq -> IRQ in the message.
>
>> + goto error;
>> + }
>> + board_info.irq = ret;
>> + }
>> + multi->clients[i] = i2c_acpi_new_device(dev, i, &board_info);
>> + if (!multi->clients[i]) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "Error creating i2c-client, idx %d\n", i);
>> + ret = -ENODEV;
>> + goto error;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, multi);
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> +error:
>
>> + while (--i >= 0)
>
> It can be simple
>
> while (i--)
>
>> + i2c_unregister_device(multi->clients[i]);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int i2c_multi_inst_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> + struct i2c_multi_inst_data *multi = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < multi->no_clients; i++)
>> + i2c_unregister_device(multi->clients[i]);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct i2c_inst_data bsg1160_data[] = {
>> + { "bmc150_accel", 0 },
>> + { "bmc150_magn", -1 },
>> + { "bmg160", -1 },
>> + {}
>> +};
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Note new device-ids must also be added to i2c_multi_instantiate_ids in
>> + * drivers/acpi/scan.c: acpi_device_enumeration_by_parent().
>> + */
>> +static const struct acpi_device_id i2c_multi_inst_acpi_ids[] = {
>> + { "BSG1160", (unsigned long)bsg1160_data },
>> + { }
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, i2c_multi_inst_acpi_ids);
>> +
>> +static struct platform_driver i2c_multi_inst_driver = {
>> + .driver = {
>> + .name = "I2C multi instantiate pseudo device driver",
>
>> + .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(i2c_multi_inst_acpi_ids),
>
> We don't need ACPI_PTR for the driver which depends on ACPI.
> In the general case we have an inconsistency with variable definition
> (might be unused).
>
>> + },
>> + .probe = i2c_multi_inst_probe,
>> + .remove = i2c_multi_inst_remove,
>> +};
>> +module_platform_driver(i2c_multi_inst_driver);
>> +
>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("I2C multi instantiate pseudo device driver");
>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>");
>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>> --
>> 2.18.0
>>
>
>
>
