On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 07:11:44PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 01 September 2014 18:04:47 Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 04:06:00PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI +/* Configure some sensible defaults for ACPI mode */ +static int smsc911x_probe_config_acpi(struct smsc911x_platform_config *config,
acpi_handle *ahandle)+{
if (!ahandle)return -ENOSYS;config->phy_interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII;config->flags |= SMSC911X_USE_32BIT;config->irq_polarity = SMSC911X_IRQ_POLARITY_ACTIVE_HIGH;config->irq_type = SMSC911X_IRQ_TYPE_PUSH_PULL;return 0;+} +#else
I don't like this and it shows issues we have with ACPI on certain ARM platforms. You hard-code these values to match the Juno platform. What if we get another SoC which has different configuration here? For DT, we have the smsc911x_probe_config_dt() which reads the relevant information from DT. I think this kind of configuration would be more suitable as _DSD properties and sharing the similar names with DT (but we go back to the question about who's in charge of the _DSD properties).
Good point, I totally missed that.
There is of course the possibility to set those values based on the acpi_device_id, but that is exactly the part that _DSD is trying to avoid.
This will of course most likely be replaced by _DSD values. I just hardcoded for now as _DSD is not yet in the kernel and issues around maintenance of bindings are not solved (unless this happened at KS where I was not present).
static int smsc911x_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
acpi_handle *ahandle = ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev); struct net_device *dev; struct smsc911x_data *pdata; struct smsc911x_platform_config *config = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);@@ -2436,6 +2464,9 @@ static int smsc911x_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) } retval = smsc911x_probe_config_dt(&pdata->config, np);
if (retval)retval = smsc911x_probe_config_acpi(&pdata->config, ahandle);In most of the ACPI patches so far we check for ACPI first with DT as a fall-back if ACPI is not enabled. This changes here.
Does this really make a difference?
I would prefer something which probes only ACPI if the ACPI is enabled (run-time, not config) otherwise DT only. E.g.
(example missing?)
I think we should have the equivalent of of_have_populated_dt(), to check whether acpi is being used to boot, and have that new function be hardcoded to zero in case of !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI).
if (!acpi_disabled) is the equivalent if I understand you correctly.
But people until this point had expressed a preference for checking .of_node and ACPI_HANDLE() to this point. This is obviously mutable though depending on community preference.
Graeme