[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YhZ5GdNmMiyLeMdq@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 18:12:41 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Enrico Weigelt <info@...ux.net>,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/10] add support for fwnode in i2c mux system and sfp
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 06:59:27PM +0100, Clément Léger wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> a écrit :
> > This doesn't look like it's trying to use a DT on an ACPI system though?
> Ideally no, but it is a possibility mentionned by Andrew, use DT
> overlays on an ACPI system. This series did not took this way (yet).
> Andrew mentionned that it could potentially be done but judging by your
> comment, i'm not sure you agree with that.
That seems like it's opening a can of worms that might be best left
closed.
> > There's been some discussion on how to handle loadable descriptions for
> > things like FPGA but I don't recall it ever having got anywhere concrete
> > - I could have missed something. Those are dynamic cases which are more
> > trouble though. For something that's a PCI card it's not clear that we
> > can't just statically instanitate the devices from kernel code, that was
> > how the MFD subsystem started off although it's now primarily applied to
> > other applications. That looks to be what's going on here?
> Yes, in this series, I used the MFD susbsytems with mfd_cells. These
> cells are attached with a swnode. Then, needed subsystems are
> modified to use the fwnode API to be able to use them with
> devices that have a swnode as a primary node.
Note that not all subsystems are going to be a good fit for fwnode, it's
concerning for the areas where ACPI and DT have substantially different
models like regulators.
> > There were separately some issues with people trying to create
> > completely swnode based enumeration mechanisms for things that required
> > totally independent code for handling swnodes which seemed very
> > concerning but it's not clear to me if that's what's going on here.
> The card is described entirely using swnode that in a MFD PCI
> driver, everything is described statically. The "enumeration" is static
> since all the devices are described in the driver and registered using
> mfd_add_device() at probe time. Thus, I don't think it adds an
> enumeration mechanism like you mention but I may be wrong.
This was all on the side parsing the swnodes rather than injecting the
data.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists