[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aad35699-393a-80dc-d088-f749cfa284c8@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:31:13 +0100
From: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
CC: <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <jslaby@...e.com>,
<p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, <heiko@...ech.de>,
<ed.blake@...drel.com>, <jhogan@...nel.org>,
<linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] serial: 8250_dw: IO space + polling mode support
On 26/02/2018 15:07, John Garry wrote:
> On 26/02/2018 15:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 13:15 +0000, John Garry wrote:
>>> On 26/02/2018 12:27, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 14:21 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 11:56 +0000, John Garry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Device (LPC0.CON0) {
>>>>>> Name (_HID, "HISI1031")
>>>>>> // Name (_CID, "PNP0501") // cannot support PNP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One more question. What is the problem with this CID? Do you have a
>>>> race
>>>> condition in enumeration?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Andy,
>>>
>>> Not sure if race condition exactly. I tried enabling this CID and a
>>> pnp
>>> device is created in pnpacpi_add_device_handler(), while we have
>>> already
>>> marked the corresponding acpi_device to skip enumeration in ACPI scan
>>> handler (by flagging it as a serial bus slave).
>>
>> Is that code already in upstream?
>
> No, not yet.
>
>>
>> If no, please, Cc next version to me and possible Mika.
>
> Of course. I should be sending it later today.
>
Hi Andy,
A while ago we discussed on this thread the possibility of adding
generic 8250 IO space platform driver support for ACPI FW.
In this discussion I mentioned that we require specifically platform
device support, and not PNP device support, as this is how we enumerate
the devices in the host controller driver. I think you're familiar with
this driver - here is the thread posting for reference:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/6/230
I would say that there were 2 main takeaway points:
a. for 8250-compatible UART, we should use a PNP driver for ACPI FW
b. you prefered us to change the host driver to use an ACPI handler approach
For b., I was not keen as we already did try the handler in the ACPI
core code, but this was not so welcome. Reasoning here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/14/532
I did also say that I would prefer not to change approach after a very
long upstream effort, with no clear end in sight.
However do you have an idea on creating a PNP device in a.? That is,
enumerate (create) a 8250 PNP device.
If you look at the least driver here:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/bus/hisi_lpc.c
We could have this working with a change in the ACPI probe code, like in
this code snippet:
list_for_each_entry(child, &adev->children, node) {
struct resource_entry *rentry;
LIST_HEAD(resource_list);
int rc;
if (!acpi_is_pnp_device(child))
continue;
acpi_dev_get_resources(child, &resource_list, NULL, NULL);
list_for_each_entry(rentry, &resource_list, node) {
struct resource *res = rentry->res;
if (res->flags | IORESOURCE_IO)
hisi_lpc_acpi_xlat_io_res(child, adev, res); /* bad */
}
rc = pnpacpi_add_device(child);
if (rc)
return rc;
}
Obviously this is not sound as we should not modify the child
acpi_device resources.
Alternatively, as another approach, I could copy the relevant code
pnpacpi_add_device() verbatim into this above code, and xlat the
resource of the PNP device, but it's not good to copy the code like.
Any other ideas?
All the best,
John
>>
> All the best,
> John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists