On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 2:25 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It is not necessary to handle the Dell specific instantiation of
> i2c_client-s for SMO88xx ACPI devices without an ACPI I2cResource
> inside the generic i801 I2C adapter driver.
>
> The kernel already instantiates platform_device-s for these ACPI devices
> and the drivers/platform/x86/dell/dell-smo8800.c driver binds to these
> platform drivers.
>
> Move the i2c_client instantiation from the generic i2c-i801 driver to
> the SMO88xx specific dell-smo8800 driver.
>
> Moving the i2c_client instantiation here has the following advantages:
>
> 1. This moves the SMO88xx ACPI device quirk handling away from the generic
> i2c-i801 module which is loaded on all Intel x86 machines to the SMO88xx
> specific dell-smo8800 module where it belongs.
>
> 2. This removes the duplication of the SMO88xx ACPI Hardware ID (HID) table
> between the i2c-i801 and dell-smo8800 drivers.
>
> 3. This allows extending the quirk handling by adding new code and related
> module parameters to the dell-smo8800 driver, without needing to modify
> the i2c-i801 code.
...
> +static int smo8800_find_i801(struct device *dev, void *data)
> +{
> + struct i2c_adapter *adap, **adap_ret = data;
> +
> + adap = i2c_verify_adapter(dev);
> + if (!adap)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (!strstarts(adap->name, "SMBus I801 adapter"))
With the comment on the previous patch I'm wondering if it makes sense
to have this to be as simple as strstr("I801") or strstr("I801 IDF")?
> + return 0;
> +
> + *adap_ret = i2c_get_adapter(adap->nr);
> + return 1;
> +}
...
> + info.addr = (long)lis3lv02d_dmi_id->driver_data;
Hmm... Usually we use uintptr_t, but okay.
...
> + if (strstarts(adap->name, "SMBus I801 adapter"))
A dup? Is there a possibility it may go desynchronized?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
