From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 255C4C18E7C for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 08:19:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01DD7217D4 for ; Wed, 22 May 2019 08:19:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728851AbfEVITr (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 04:19:47 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com ([67.231.152.168]:49134 "EHLO mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728600AbfEVITq (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2019 04:19:46 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0077474.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4M8EmX0019931; Wed, 22 May 2019 03:19:07 -0500 Authentication-Results: ppops.net; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com Received: from mail2.cirrus.com (mail2.cirrus.com [141.131.128.20]) by mx0b-001ae601.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2sjefmw4u6-1; Wed, 22 May 2019 03:19:06 -0500 Received: from EDIEX02.ad.cirrus.com (unknown [198.61.84.81]) by mail2.cirrus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46BD2605A6A3; Wed, 22 May 2019 03:19:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from EDIEX01.ad.cirrus.com (198.61.84.80) by EDIEX02.ad.cirrus.com (198.61.84.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1591.10; Wed, 22 May 2019 09:19:05 +0100 Received: from ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com (198.61.86.93) by EDIEX01.ad.cirrus.com (198.61.84.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.1.1591.10 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 22 May 2019 09:19:05 +0100 Received: from ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com (ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com [198.61.86.93]) by ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9917245; Wed, 22 May 2019 09:19:05 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 09:19:05 +0100 From: Charles Keepax To: Andy Shevchenko CC: , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] i2c: core: Move ACPI gpio IRQ handling into i2c_acpi_get_irq Message-ID: <20190522081905.GC99937@ediswmail.ad.cirrus.com> References: <20190521150502.27305-1-ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com> <20190521150502.27305-5-ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com> <20190521172726.GO9224@smile.fi.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190521172726.GO9224@smile.fi.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=952 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905220061 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 08:27:26PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 04:05:01PM +0100, Charles Keepax wrote: > > It makes sense to contain all the ACPI IRQ handling in a single helper > > function. > > > Note that this one is somewhat interesting, it seems the search > > through the resource list is done against the companion device > > of the adapter but the GPIO search is done against the companion > > device of the client. It feels to me like these really should > > be done on the same device, and certainly this is what SPI > > does (both against the equivalent of the adapter). Perhaps > > someone with more ACPI knowledge than myself could comment? > > It would be interesting to see the path how you come to this conclusion. > Apologies but I am not sure which conclusion you are referencing. Assuming it is them being called with different acpi_device's. It is perhaps me misunderstanding things but it looks like i2c_acpi_get_info implies the adev should correspond to the adapter. Where as acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get is called with the result of ACPI_COMPANION(dev) where dev is client->dev. > > acpi_dev_free_resource_list(&resource_list); > > > > + if (*irq < 0) > > + *irq = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get(ACPI_COMPANION(&client->dev), 0); > > I think adev here is what we may use here. > Indeed that is what I would have expected as well, I will update the code to do so and hopefully any issues will come out in testing. > You may put assert here and see if it happens when you test your series. > Alas I don't have a good way to test this series, they come out of some additional work Wolfram wanted based on some issues caused by a device tree fix I made a while back. Thanks, Charles