Your patch fixes my issue, so feel free to add a

  Tested-by: Nicolai Stange <nicsta...@gmail.com>

for this either.

But please see my remark below.


Mika Westerberg <mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com> writes:

> When enumerating I2C devices connected to an I2C adapter we scan the whole
> namespace (as it is possible to have devices anywhere in that namespace,
> not just below the I2C adapter device) and add each found device to the I2C
> bus in question.
>
> Now after commit 525e6fabeae2 ("i2c / ACPI: add support for ACPI
> reconfigure notifications") checking of the adapter handle to the one found
> in the I2cSerialBus() resource was moved to happen after resources of the
> I2C device has been parsed. This means that if the I2cSerialBus() resource
> points to an adapter that does not exists in the system we still parse
> those resources. This is problematic in particular because
> acpi_dev_resource_interrupt() tries to configure GSI if the device also has
> an Interrupt() resource. Failing to do that results errrors like this to be
> printed on the console:
>
>   [   10.409490] ERROR: Unable to locate IOAPIC for GSI 37
>
> To fix this we pass the I2C adapter to i2c_acpi_get_info() and make sure
> the handle matches the one in the I2cSerialBus() resource before doing
> anything else to the device.
>
> Reported-by: Nicolai Stange <nicsta...@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c | 12 +++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
> index c61c961cf8f9..eb32cb783fc8 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c
> @@ -168,6 +168,7 @@ static int i2c_acpi_do_lookup(struct acpi_device *adev,
>  
>  static int i2c_acpi_get_info(struct acpi_device *adev,
>                            struct i2c_board_info *info,
> +                          struct i2c_adapter *adapter,
>                            acpi_handle *adapter_handle)
>  {
>       struct list_head resource_list;
> @@ -182,6 +183,10 @@ static int i2c_acpi_get_info(struct acpi_device *adev,
>       if (ret)
>               return ret;
>  
> +     /* The adapter must match the one in I2cSerialBus() connector */
> +     if (adapter && ACPI_HANDLE(&adapter->dev) != lookup.adapter_handle)
> +             return -ENODEV;
> +

Would it be sensible to add the adapter presence check you provided
earlier, i.e.

+       else if (!adapter) {
+               /* The adapter must be present */
+               if (acpi_bus_get_device(lookup.adapter_handle, &adapter_adev))
+                       return -ENODEV;
+               if (acpi_bus_get_status(adapter_adev) || 
!adapter_adev->status.present)
+                       return -ENODEV;
+
+       }


here, because we can't know if ...


>       info->fwnode = acpi_fwnode_handle(adev);
>       *adapter_handle = lookup.adapter_handle;
>  
> @@ -231,10 +236,7 @@ static acpi_status i2c_acpi_add_device(acpi_handle 
> handle, u32 level,
>       if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &adev))
>               return AE_OK;
>  
> -     if (i2c_acpi_get_info(adev, &info, &adapter_handle))
> -             return AE_OK;
> -
> -     if (adapter_handle != ACPI_HANDLE(&adapter->dev))
> +     if (i2c_acpi_get_info(adev, &info, adapter, &adapter_handle))
>               return AE_OK;
>  
>       i2c_acpi_register_device(adapter, adev, &info);
> @@ -368,7 +370,7 @@ static int i2c_acpi_notify(struct notifier_block *nb, 
> unsigned long value,
>  
>       switch (value) {
>       case ACPI_RECONFIG_DEVICE_ADD:
> -             if (i2c_acpi_get_info(adev, &info, &adapter_handle))
> +             if (i2c_acpi_get_info(adev, &info, NULL, &adapter_handle))
>                       break;

... the ACPI device added here is physically existent?

>  
>               adapter = i2c_acpi_find_adapter_by_handle(adapter_handle);

I suppose that it is always true that adev has been LoadTable()'d from
some SSDT? Can't this SSDT be just as broken as my DSDT is? Not that
I've seen such a case in the real world, I'm just asking.

Thanks,

Nicolai

Reply via email to