Re: pinctrl-amd: What hardware does it apply to?
From: Mika Westerberg
Date: Fri Dec 22 2017 - 01:05:50 EST
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 10:37:32AM +1000, Andrew Cooks wrote:
> On 21/12/17 22:12, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:11:18AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >>> In contrast, the pinctrl-amd driver only mentions the newer KERNCZ platform
> >>> name and uses ACPI for probing without disclosing any Family or Model numbers.
> >>> pinctrl-amd applies to "AMD0030" and "AMDI0030"
> >>> The ACPI HID matching makes it difficult to determine what family and model the
> >>> driver applies to, or rather, I have not been able to find such a mapping of HIDs
> >>> to family and model numbers. It's also impossible to guess an ACPI _HID
> >>> that may or may not exist for the Family 16h Model 30h platform and even if I
> >>> allocate a new HID for our ACPI implementation, that HID has little hope of
> >>> being accepted into the mainline driver.
> >> I didn't understand anything of what you just wrote.
> >> I am basically ignorant when it comes to ACPI details.
> >> So let's CC the GPIO ACPI maintainer, Mika Westerberg.
> > If the hardware is not the same that is already supported by the
> > pinctrl-amd, then you definitely should allocate a new separate ACPI
> > _HID for it. That's pretty much what we do with every new SoC because
> > they typically don't have identical pin lists among other things.
> Right. I wonder if my reasons for objecting to using ACPI _HID in this
> way (as the existing drivers do) are being overlooked, or if there's
> something missing in my understanding.
No, we don't object valid ACPI IDs. Where did you learn that?
> Given the HID "AMDI0030", it is difficult for anyone besides AMD to
> determine what SoC that is intended to match. Joe Random Developer
> would not be able to find the datasheet for the SoC and verify that
> this driver works correctly, or whether it is used by any firmware at
> However, my specific problem is the inverse. Given a SoC without
> vendor-supplied HID or DSDT ASL (ie. I'm writing the DSDT ASL), I
> don't know what HID to allocate for the driver and DSDT, and I'm too
> low in the food chain to allocate the one true HID for this SoC that
> every firmware developer and driver developer should use. This is not
> a problem for out-of-tree patches, but it blocks me from contributing
> usable support for a new SoC.
I think there is a process that allows you to allocate _HID for your
device buried somewhere in UEFI forums.
There is also PRP0001 _HID that can be used with Device Tree compatible
devices (see Documentation/acpi/enumeration.txt that allows you to use
DT compatible string instead.
> So my objection is that the coupling between the driver and ACPI
> firmware, caused by these special HID strings, is both unnecessary and
> disempowering. If an appropriate ID register exists in the MMIO space,
> I think that would solve this issue.
Well, in order to access the MMIO your device needs to be enumerated by
the kernel. In order to load a driver for the device you need to
have some sort of identifier for the thing. Yes, you can also create
a "board file" that has this information and then creates platform
device for your driver but that sort of things we try to avoid by using
firmware to describe devices.