Hi,
On 07-01-19 16:35, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 12:15:53PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
DSI LCD panels describe an initialization sequence in the Video BIOS
Tables using so called MIPI sequences. One possible element in these
sequences is a PMIC specific element of 15 bytes.
Although this is not really an ACPI opregion, the ACPI opregion code is the
closest thing we have. We need to have support for these PMIC specific MIPI
sequence elements somwhere. Since we already instantiate a special platform
device for Intel PMICs for the ACPI PMIC OpRegion handler to bind to,
with PMIC specific implementations of the OpRegion, the handling of MIPI
sequence PMIC elements fits very well in the ACPI PMIC OpRegion code.
This commit adds a new intel_soc_pmic_exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element()
function, which is to be backed by a PMIC specific
exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element callback. This function will be called by the
i915 code to execture MIPI sequence PMIC elements.
+/**
+ * intel_soc_pmic_exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element - Execute PMIC MIPI sequence
I wonder if we need pmic duplication in the name.
Mipi sequences can do a bunch of things, talk to the panel over
the MIPI bus, set GPIOs, read-modify-write PMIC registers, etc.
This function can only execute the PMIC bits, not the rest,
so the second pmic is there to indiciate we are executing
a PMIC MIPI sequence and not e.g. a GPIO one. So I believe that
keeping this as is is best.
Regards,
Hans
+ * @i2c_address: I2C client address for the PMIC
+ * @reg_address: PMIC register address
+ * @value: New value for the register bits to change
+ * @mask: Mask indicating which register bits to change
+ *
+ * DSI LCD panels describe an initialization sequence in the i915 VBT (Video
+ * BIOS Tables) using so called MIPI sequences. One possible element in these
+ * sequences is a PMIC specific element of 15 bytes.
+ *
+ * This function executes these PMIC specific elements sending the embedded
+ * commands to the PMIC.
+ *
+ * Return 0 on success, < 0 on failure.
+ */
+int intel_soc_pmic_exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element(u16 i2c_address, u32 reg_address,
+ u32 value, u32 mask)
+{
+ struct intel_pmic_opregion_data *d;
+ int ret;
+
+ if (!intel_pmic_opregion) {
+ pr_warn("%s: No PMIC registered\n", __func__);
+ return -ENXIO;
+ }
+
+ d = intel_pmic_opregion->data;
+
+ mutex_lock(&intel_pmic_opregion->lock);
+
+ if (d->exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element) {
+ ret = d->exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element(intel_pmic_opregion->regmap,
+ i2c_address, reg_address,
+ value, mask);
Here it's not quite a dup, but it's implied by the name of structure...
+ } else {
+ pr_warn("%s: Not implemented\n", __func__);
+ pr_warn("%s: i2c-addr: 0x%x reg-addr 0x%x value 0x%x mask
0x%x\n",
+ __func__, i2c_address, reg_address, value, mask);
+ ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
+ }
+
+ mutex_unlock(&intel_pmic_opregion->lock);
+
+ return ret;
+}
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
