On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 06:32:45PM +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote:
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).
Not much at the KS, I think it will need to be followed up on lkml (https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/17/10 is the last I'm aware of, not sure about any updates in the meantime).
While the above gets sorted, what's the position from an ARM perspective (and covered by Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt)? I think the "Device Enumeration" section in this document is fine, it's just the kernel infrastructure missing.
Alternatively, you can say _DSD is not allowed (yet?) but I don't particularly like basing the configuration on acpi_device_id like in this patch. Which would leave us with ignoring any SoC containing devices that require such specific configuration.