Date:	Wed, 4 Feb 2015 16:11:51 +0200
From:	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] gpio: support for GPIO forwarding

On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 10:51:27AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, January 30, 2015 03:48:30 PM Linus Walleij wrote:
> 
> >> So you could detect one by making a checksum of the binary or something.
> >>
> >> And then you'd know that the table with this checksum needs patching?
> >
> > At a single table level it is generally difficult to say whether or not
> > things are going to work.
> >
> > What needs to work is the namespace which is built from all of the tables
> > provided combined.  So the namespace needs to be populated first and then
> > fixes applied on top of that (presumably by deleting, adding or replacing
> > objects).
> >
> > Now, in theory, you *may* be able to figure out that combination of tables
> > A produces namespace B which then will require fix X if the system is Y,
> > but quite frankly I wouldn't count on that.
> >
> > Moreover, fixups (or "patches" as I called them, but that wasn't exactly
> > correct) need to be provided in the form of AML definition blocks to apply on
> > top of an already populated namespace and if you want to use a binary kernel image,
> > you can't really afford putting all that stuff for all systems it can possibly
> > run on into it.  This means that distros need to be able to combine a fixup for
> > the ACPI tables with the binary kernel and install the result into the system's
> > boot medium (whatever it is).  Also it should be possible to update the fixup
> > and the kernel image separately if necessary.
> >
> > Now from the kernel's perspective that raises the question: "What if the
> > ACPI tables fixup provided by the distro is not sufficient?"
> >
> > That needs to be addressed somehow in the code.
> 
> Yeah I guess I'm convinced that we need to handle this particular
> weirdness in the gpio-acpi code... if it can be contained there as
> expressed by Alexandre.

I'm still fine if we want to confine this "gpio forwarding" to acpi
if you guys want it, but I was looking at the Sound SoC drivers and I
realised that we do have places which pass gpio descriptors to other
devices in platform data. And these of course aren't always used on
acpi platforms. By greping gpio_desc I saw at least these files are
passing it in platform data structures:

include/sound/soc.h
include/linux/leds.h
include/linux/usb/usb_phy_generic.h

There are probable others but I checked those. And of course now there
is nothing preventing people from adding more of them.

So we could use my original idea with them. I think most of the
drivers using those are tied to separate handling for dt and pdata
only because of the way the gpio descriptor is delivered to them.

What do you guys think?


Cheers,

-- 
heikki
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists