On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 10:19 +0000, John Garry wrote:
> On 01/03/2018 19:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 00:40 +0800, John Garry wrote:
> > Ok, this needs to be thought about a bit more.
> > I guess I understand what's is the problem with PNP IDs in the
> > driver.
> > You probe your LPC device quite late.
> > One option is to move from classical probe to a event-driven model,
> > i.e.
> > via registering a notifier (see acpi_lpss.c), preparing necessary
> > stuff
> > at earlier stages and then register devices by their enumeration and
> > appearance.
> > Though, if I would be you I would seek a opinion from Rafael and
> > Mika
> > (maybe others as well).
> I would like to give a bit more background on this HW. This HW is now
> for us a legacy device. It will be used in no more chipsets. It is
> used in hip06 and hip07 chipsets on our D03 and D05 boards,
> respectively. On these boards we have the following LPC slave devices
> D03: UART, IPMI
> D05: IPMI
> Supporting IPMI for D05 is required. Supporting legacy D03 and the
> is a "nice-to-have". But it is definitely ok for us to not support
I see. But it raises another question to the whole series, why do we
introduce a generic indirect IO for only two devices ever?
Can't it be done in the (MFD) driver itself?
Possible another option, is to introduce a specific regmap for that and
use it in the drivers (though it might be not so trivial with existing
> Our previous ACPI support solution did use a scan handler for this
> but there was some sensible pushback on this - please check this if
> familiar: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/14/532
> Overall it does not make sense to try to move this back to
> and receive more pushback from that direction,
Ah, I think the ARM people just worried mostly about arm64 in the
pathnames, though your case is very similar to our LPSS for only few
I would rather think if you move it directly to drivers/acpi it would be
> and only delay
> indefinitely upstreaming this driver (which is now running at ~27
> since v1) to just support a PNP-compatible device which we don't care
> too much about.
As I suggested before, you would better to get an input from
My personal opinion that the handler approach is cleaner, though it's
still non-generic stuff. I think that this is what Mika referred to in
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy