Re: [PATCH 2/3] spi / ACPI: add ACPI enumeration support

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, November 06, 2012 11:28:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 06, 2012 01:35:56 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 05, 2012 09:54:42 AM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> > On Saturday, November 03, 2012 09:59:28 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> >> On Saturday, November 03, 2012 10:13:10 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > >> >> > On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 01:42:02PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > >> >> > > On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Mika Westerberg
> > >> >> > > <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >> > > > ACPI 5 introduced SPISerialBus resource that allows us to enumerate and
> > >> >> > > > configure the SPI slave devices behind the SPI controller. This patch adds
> > >> >> > > > support for this to the SPI core.
> > >> > [...]
> > >> >> > And if the ACPI core parses the _CRS, how does it pass all the resources to
> > >> >> > the drivers?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Pretty much the same way the $subject patch does.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Instead of parsing the entire subtree below an SPI controller and trying
> > >> >> acpi_spi_add_device() for each device node in there, it could call
> > >> >> acpi_spi_add_device() whenever it finds a device of type
> > >> >> ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_SERIAL_BUS/ACPI_RESOURCE_SERIAL_TYPE_SPI.
> > >> >> The only problem is how to pass "master" to it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> So Bjorn, do you have any idea how we could pass the "master" pointer from the
> > >> >> ACPI core to acpi_spi_add_device() in a sensible way?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> An alternative might be to store the information obtained from _CRS in
> > >> >> struct acpi_device objects created by the ACPI core while parsing the
> > >> >> namespace.  We do that already for things like _PRW, so we might as well do it
> > >> >> for _CRS.  Then, the SPI core could just walk the subtree of the device hierarchy
> > >> >> below the SPI controller's acpi_device to extract that information.
> > >> >> Maybe that's the way to go?
> > >> >
> > >> > The general idea is to move the _CRS parsing routine from acpi_platform.c
> > >> > to scan.c and make it attach resource objects to struct acpi_device.
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm thinking about adding a list head to struct acpi_device pointing to a
> > >> > list of entries like:
> > >> >
> > >> > struct resource_list_entry {
> > >> >         struct list_head node;
> > >> >         struct resource *resources;
> > >> >         unsigned int count;
> > >> > };
> > >> >
> > >> > where "resources" is an array of resources (e.g. interrupts) in the given
> > >> > entry and count is the size of that array.
> > >> >
> > >> > That list would contain common resources like ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_MEMORY32,
> > >> > ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_IRQ, ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_ADDRESS32, ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_EXTENDED_IRQ.
> > >>
> > >> This is exactly what PNPACPI already does.  For every Device node in
> > >> the namespace, pnpacpi/rsparser.c parses _CRS and builds a list of
> > >> struct resources that correspond to it.  If you put this functionality
> > >> in acpi/scan.c, should we get rid of PNPACPI?
> > >
> > > Quite likely.  At least this part of it, if you want the core to parse
> > > resources.
> > >
> > > That said, I actually tried to abstract out resource parsing in a more generic
> > > fashion on the basis of our new platform device support code, but quite frankly
> > > I wasn't able to.
> > >
> > > The problem is that struct resource is too simple to be useful for representing
> > > all of the information that can be encoded in ACPI resources.  As a result, some
> > > information have to be stored directly in things like struct pnp_dev, struct
> > > platform_device etc. and if we want to represent it generically, the only way
> > > to do that seems to be using the ACPICA resource types as defined in acrestyp.h.
> > 
> > Really?  I didn't have that impression.  It might be that the new GPIO
> > and SERIAL_BUS stuff makes it too complicated for a struct resource,
> > but prior to that, I don't think it was.  It's true that there are
> > many different formats (IO, FIXED_IO, MEMORY24, MEMORY32, etc.), but
> > only the core needs to be aware of the encoding of all those formats.
> > As far as a *driver* is concerned, there are only IRQ, DMA, IO, and
> > MEM resources, and those fit easily in a struct resource.
> 
> However, for example expanding ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_EXTENDED_IRQ into an
> array of struct resource objects before anyone actually needs it seems a
> bit wasteful to me.  Let alone registering GSI for the interrupts while
> we're parsing those resources.
> 
> > I want to expand on what I said before about _CRS being the domain of
> > the core, not drivers.
> 
> Well, I see a difference between _evaluating_ _CRS and _parsing_ its
> output.  In particular, I don't see a reason to do those two things in
> one operation.  In fact, I see reasons to do otherwise. :-)
> 
> > The core must evaluate _CRS to know where
> > devices are and avoid conflicts when assigning resources.  The core
> > must evaluate _PRS and _SRS when making resource assignments.  It
> > doesn't make sense for drivers to be using _PRS and _SRS; they don't
> > have a global view of resources, and any assignment they make would
> > likely cause conflicts with other devices.  I think it makes sense to
> > consolidate all _CRS, _PRS, and _SRS management in the core rather
> > than splitting it up.  This is exactly analogous to PCI BAR
> > management, and we don't intend drivers to read and write BARs
> > directly.
> 
> OK, but then we need to pass the information obtained from _CRS
> (presumably after some adjustments through _SRS) to drivers, or rather to
> things like the SPI core, I2C core etc. so that they can create device
> objects for drivers to bind to and quite frankly I don't see why not to use
> ACPI resources for that.

Nevertheless, the routines for parsing those resources should belong
to the ACPI core, mostly to avoid code duplication.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/