[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdkNGux_5qvCrW0+Wr=9gTAd60VE+3mWwaSAZrFoVHcqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 22:20:12 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
Michał Kępień <kernel@...pniu.pl>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Steven Honeyman <stevenhoneyman@...il.com>,
Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
Jochen Eisinger <jochen@...guin-breeder.org>,
Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Mario Limonciello <Mario_Limonciello@...l.com>,
Alex Hung <alex.hung@...onical.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: i801: Register optional lis3lv02d i2c device on Dell machines
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 January 2017 19:38:43 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> "IIRC both dell-smo8800 and lis3lv02d represent one HW device (that
>> ST microelectronics accelerometer) but due to complicated HW
>> abstraction and layers on Dell laptops it is handled by two drivers,
>> one ACPI and one i2c."
>>
>> and that is the core of the issue. You have 2 drivers fighting over
>> the same device. Fix this and it will all work.
>
> With my current implementation (which I sent in this patch), they are
> not fighting.
>
> dell-smo8800 exports /dev/freefall (and nothing more) and lis3lv02d only
> accelerometer device as lis3lv02d driver does not get IRQ number in
> platform data.
>
>> As far as I can see hp_accel instantiates lis3lv02d and accesses it
>> via ACPI methods, can the same be done for Dell?
>
> No, Dell does not have any ACPI methods.
> And as I wrote in ACPI or DMI
> is even not i2c address of device, so it needs to be specified in code
> itself.
And as I wrote there is still a way to provide it without hardcoding
on model basis.
> Really there is no other way... :-(
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists