Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: surface3_power: MSHW0011 rev-eng implementation

[Benjamin Tissoires]

On Jun 30 2017 or thereabouts, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 29-06-17 16:22, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > +Cc: Hans (he might give some advice regarding to the below)
> 
> Thank you for the Cc, so here we have the opposite situation as
> with the devices with the AXP288 PMIC and the Cherry Trail
> Whiskey Cove PMIC combined with the TI bq24292i charger and max17042
> fuel-gauge. In those cases we have well working native drivers
> for the used chips and we don't know the API of the custom ACPI
> OpRegion the ACPI battery and ac interface implementing ACPI nodes
> want. So for these devices we've disabled the ACPI battery and
> ac drivers and are using power_supply drivers for the used chips
> directly.
> 
> Here we've a similar setup where the ACPI nodes implementing the
> ACPI battery and ac interfaces require a custom OpRegion, but
> Benjamin has more or less figured out what the expected Opregion
> API is (and implemented it) and we do not know which chips are
> actually used.

Yeah, cracking open a Surface 3 voids the guarantee and it's a glue hell
from what I can understand. So no idea which chip is used in the end :(

> 
> Judging from the above I believe that implementing the ACPI
> OpRegion support for the MSHW0011 devices is a good solution
> in this case.

Thanks :)

> 
> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Benjamin Tissoires
> > <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > MSHW0011 replaces the battery firmware by using ACPI operation regions.
> > > The values have been obtained by reverse engineering, and are subject to
> > > errors. Looks like it works on overall pretty well.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > > +/*
> > > + * Further findings regarding the 2 chips declared in the MSHW0011 are:
> > > + * - there are 2 chips declared:
> > > + *   . 0x22 seems to control the ADP1 line status (and probably the charger)
> > > + *   . 0x55 controls the battery directly
> > > + * - the battery chip uses a SMBus protocol (using plain SMBus allows non
> > > + *   destructive commands):
> > > + *   . the commands/registers used are in the range 0x00..0x7F
> > > + *   . if bit 8 (0x80) is set in the SMBus command, the returned value is the
> > > + *     same as when it is not set. There is a high chance this bit is the
> > > + *     read/write
> > > + *   . the various registers semantic as been deduced by observing the register
> > > + *     dumps.
> > 
> > All of this sounds familiar if look at what Hans discovered while was
> > doing INT33FE support.
> > Hans, does above ring any bell to you?
> 
> Familiar yes, but I actually already looked at this rev-eng driver while working
> on my INT33FE support and it is for different chips, and I don't know for
> which models exactly.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > > +static int acpi_find_i2c(struct acpi_resource *ares, void *data)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct mshw0011_lookup *lookup = data;
> > > +
> > > +       if (ares->type != ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_SERIAL_BUS)
> > > +               return 1;
> > > +
> > > +       if (lookup->n++ == lookup->index && !lookup->addr)
> > > +               lookup->addr = ares->data.i2c_serial_bus.slave_address;
> > > +
> > > +       return 1;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int mshw0011_i2c_resource_lookup(struct mshw0011_data *cdata,
> > > +                                       unsigned int index)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct i2c_client *client = cdata->adp1;
> > > +       struct acpi_device *adev = ACPI_COMPANION(&client->dev);
> > > +       struct mshw0011_lookup lookup = {
> > > +               .cdata = cdata,
> > > +               .index = index,
> > > +       };
> > > +       struct list_head res_list;
> > > +       int ret;
> > > +
> > > +       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&res_list);
> > > +
> > > +       ret = acpi_dev_get_resources(adev, &res_list, acpi_find_i2c, &lookup);
> > > +       if (ret < 0)
> > > +               return ret;
> > > +
> > > +       acpi_dev_free_resource_list(&res_list);
> > > +
> > > +       if (!lookup.addr)
> > > +               return -ENOENT;
> > > +
> > > +       return lookup.addr;
> > > +}
> > 
> > Strange you have above functions here. It's a copy paste from I2C > core. Please, think about way of deduplicating it.
> 
> Right, this is something I can actually help with. When implementing the
> INT33FE support (*) I also was dealing with an ACPI node with more then 1
> I2cSerialBus type resource and I needed not just an i2c-client for the
> first one (which the i2c-core gives us) but also for the others.
> 
> In 4.12 there is an i2c_acpi_new_device function which you can use
> to create an i2c-client for the second i2c address you want to communicate
> with, here is an example usage:
> 
> struct i2c_board_info board_info;
> 
> memset(&board_info, 0, sizeof(board_info));
> strlcpy(board_info.type, "MSHW0011-bat0", I2C_NAME_SIZE);
> bat0 = i2c_acpi_new_device(dev, 1, &board_info);
> 
> And then you can use bat0 to communicate to the other address,
> as before, while dropping a whole bunch of copy-pasted code :)

Thanks for the tip. I wrote this code more than a year ago IIRC, and
there might not be those facilities at the time.
Anyway, I'll amend this in v3.

Cheers,
Benjamin

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hans
> 
> 
> 
> *) Well an implementation of INT33FE support really since there seem to be many
> different INT33FE devices, each one for a different charger / fuel-gauge combi
> and you can only differentiate which one you're actually dealing with by
> checking the PTYPE APCI Object and my implementation only supports PTYPE 4
>