[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201201064421.GR4351@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 08:44:21 +0200
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>
To: Dan Scally <djrscally@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, devel@...ica.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
lenb@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, bgolaszewski@...libre.com,
wsa@...nel.org, yong.zhi@...el.com, sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com,
bingbu.cao@...el.com, tian.shu.qiu@...el.com, mchehab@...nel.org,
robert.moore@...el.com, erik.kaneda@...el.com, pmladek@...e.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com,
linux@...musvillemoes.dk, kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com,
jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org,
laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com,
jorhand@...ux.microsoft.com, kitakar@...il.com,
heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/18] ipu3: Add driver for dummy INT3472 ACPI device
Hi Dan,
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:06:03PM +0000, Dan Scally wrote:
> Hi Sakari
>
> On 30/11/2020 20:52, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> >> +static const struct acpi_device_id int3472_device_id[] = {
> >> + { "INT3472", 0 },
> > The INT3472 _HID is really allocated for the tps68470 PMIC chip. It may not
> > be used by other drivers; people will want to build kernels where both of
> > these ACPI table layouts are functional.
> >
> > Instead, I propose, that you add this as an option to the tps68470 driver
> > that figures out whether the ACPI device for the tps68470 device actually
> > describes something else, in a similar fashion you do with the cio2-bridge
> > driver. I think it may need a separate Kconfig option albeit this and
> > cio2-bridge cannot be used separately.
>
> It actually occurs to me that that may not work (I know I called that
> out as an option we considered, but that was a while ago actually). The
> reason I wasn't worried about the existing tps68470 driver binding to
> these devices is that it's an i2c driver, and these dummy devices don't
> have an I2cSerialBusV2, so no I2C device is created by them the kernel.
>
>
> Won't that mean the tps68470 driver won't ever be probed for these devices?
Oops. I missed this indeed was not an I²C driver. So please ignore the
comment.
So I guess this wouldn't be an actual problem. I'd still like to test this
on a system with tps68470, as the rest of the set.
--
Kind regards,
Sakari Ailus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists