Re: [PATCH 3/4] mfd: dln2: add support for ACPI

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, January 23, 2015 08:47:58 AM Octavian Purdila wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 22, 2015 12:13:13 PM Octavian Purdila wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> <snip>
> >> The idea here is to set the companion for the MFD sub-devices. Mika's
> >> commit "mfd: Add ACPI support" propagates the parent's companion to
> >> the MFD sub-devices, so it is sufficient to set the ACPI companion to
> >> the USB device.
> >
> > For the USB device itself you'll then end up with an incomplete binding (you
> > can't get back to the USB device from the ACPI object), so no, it isn't
> > sufficient.
> >
> >> Then, the companion will be propagated to the sub-devices after which
> >> acpi_bind_one() will be called for the sub-devices from
> >> mfd_add_devices (via platform_device_add -> device_add ->
> >> platform_notify).
> >
> > In fact, your use case doesn't seem to cover any of the use cases that
> > the Mika's commit addressed.  Namely, your parent device doesn't have
> > an ACPI companion to start with and you want your MFD cells to be bound
> > to the "DLN2000" thing.  That's why you're setting the ACPI companion
> > for the USB device, isn't it?
> >
> >> It is true that the USB dev will have its ACPI companion set without
> >> having acpi_bind_one called but I do not see any harm in that. Even
> >> though acpi_unbind_one() is called it will not find the USB dev on the
> >> physical node list so no put_device() imbalance is caused.
> >
> > Well, there are places where it matters.  Some links in sysfs will be missing
> > for one example.  Also please see the changelog of commit 52870786ff5d (ACPI:
> > Use ACPI companion to match only the first physical device).
> >
> > Bottom line: You really should be using acpi_bind_one() here and
> > acpi_unbind_one() on disconnect if you have to.
> >
> 
> OK, I understand now.
> 
> >> > And no, "Let's come up with a patch that sort of works, throw it at the maintainers
> >> > and see what happens" is not an acceptable approach, sorry.
> >>
> >> This patch is based on your feedback of the previous RFC patch set:
> >
> > Oh, is it?  I can't recall advising you to use request_firmware() for
> > uploading ACPI tables or some other questionable things that the patch is
> > doing.
> >
> > And if it still was an RFC, that wouldn't be a problem, but if you just send
> > non-RFC patches out, that means you want people to merge them.  This is bad
> > if the patches in question are not in a good enough shape and this one isn't.
> >
> 
> Yes, this should have been tagged with RFC, sorry about that.
> 
> > Now, why is this a bad idea to load ACPI tables from a driver using
> > request_firmware()?  Because those tables are not device firmare.  They are
> > not firmware that you load into a device to make it work (which then works
> > with all instances of the given hardware), they are part of system configuration
> > information and have to match what's there in the system.  For instance, if you
> > ship your example SSDT with a general-purpose distro, it may just not match the
> > hardware configuration of systems that people will try to use it with.
> >
> > So, while it is sort of OK to look up "DLN2000" and bind the USB device to
> > that by hand (although this looks ugly to me), it is not OK to load a random
> > custom SSDT if it is missing.
> >
> > We need to add a generic mechanism for loading custom SSDTs not present in the
> > firmware image and maybe even to load them on demand, but that cannot happen in
> > an ad-hoc way.  So the entire table loading-unloading code in your patch can go
> > away for now and you need to fail probing if the "DLN2000" ACPI object is not
> > present.
> >
> 
> That sounds interesting, I like the idea of a generic mechanism for
> loading custom SSDTs. Do you have any initial thoughts/pointers for
> starting that?

Thoughts - yes, pointers - not so much.  I'll get back to you when I'm done
with the e-mail backlog from the last few weeks.

> Thanks for the review and feedback.

No problem.

-- 
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/