lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] i2c / ACPI: add ACPI enumeration support
Date
On Friday, November 16, 2012 02:03:57 PM Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:09:03 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 01:03:17 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > ACPI 5 introduced I2cSerialBus resource that makes it possible to enumerate
> > > and configure the I2C slave devices behind the I2C controller. This patch
> > > adds helper functions to support I2C slave enumeration.
> > >
> > > An ACPI enabled I2C controller driver only needs to call acpi_i2c_register_devices()
> > > in order to get its slave devices enumerated, created and bound to the
> > > corresponding ACPI handle.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > Are there any objections against this patch or comments?
> >
> > Worfram? Jean? Ben?
>
> I am no longer maintaining the i2c subsystem and will not have the time
> to look deeply into this. All I can say is that I very happy to see
> this finally happen. Maybe with ACPI 5.0 we will finally be done with
> resource conflicts plaguing many systems for several years now.
>
> I took a quick look, and the only thing which seems suspicious is this
> function:
>
> > +static int acpi_i2c_find_child_address(struct acpi_resource *ares, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_resource_i2c_serialbus *sb;
> > + struct acpi_i2c_find *i2c_find = data;
> > +
> > + if (ares->type != ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_SERIAL_BUS)
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > + sb = &ares->data.i2c_serial_bus;
> > + if (sb->type != ACPI_RESOURCE_SERIAL_TYPE_I2C)
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > + if (sb->slave_address == i2c_find->addr)
>
> The 7-bit and 10-bit address maps overlap, so the above isn't enough.
> You must compare the addresses _and_ sb->access_mode with
> i2c_find->access_mode (which needs to be added and filled properly.)
>
> > + i2c_find->found = true;
> > +
> > + return 1;
> > +}
>
> Plus, it seems odd that this function always returns 1.

Yes, this is a bug I think. Mika?


--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-16 15:01    [W:0.130 / U:0.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site