Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] i2c: Add multi-instantiate pseudo driver

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 08/08/2018 11:08 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On systems with ACPI instantiated i2c-clients, normally there is 1 fw_node
> > per i2c-device and that fw-node contains 1 I2cSerialBus resource for that 1
> > i2c-device.
> >
> > But in some rare cases the manufacturer has decided to describe multiple
> > i2c-devices in a single ACPI fwnode with multiple I2cSerialBus resources.
> >
> > An earlier attempt to fix this in the i2c-core resulted in a lot of extra
> > code to support this corner-case.
> >
> > This commit introduces a new i2c-multi-instantiate driver which fixes this
> > in a different way. This new driver can be built as a module which will
> > only loaded on affected systems.
> >
> > This driver will instantiate a new i2c-client per I2cSerialBus resource,
> > using the driver_data from the acpi_device_id it is binding to to tell it
> > which chip-type (and optional irq-resource) to use when instantiating.
> >
> > Note this driver depends on a platform device being instantiated for the
> > ACPI fwnode, see the i2c_multi_instantiate_ids list of ACPI device-ids in
> > drivers/acpi/scan.c: acpi_device_enumeration_by_parent().
>
> Thanks for an update! My comments below.
>
> > +struct i2c_inst_data {
> > +       const char *type;
> > +       int irq_idx;
> > +};
>
> > +struct i2c_multi_inst_data {
>
> > +       int no_clients;
>
> Name a bit confusing. What about num_clients?

no is often used as abbreviation for "number of" so this is a quite
normal naming scheme. But if you really want me to I can do a v5
renaming this to num_clients.

> > +       struct i2c_client *clients[0];
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int i2c_multi_inst_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > +       struct i2c_multi_inst_data *multi;
> > +       const struct acpi_device_id *match;
> > +       const struct i2c_inst_data *inst_data;
> > +       struct i2c_board_info board_info = {};
> > +       struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > +       struct acpi_device *adev;
> > +       char name[32];
> > +       int i, ret;
> > +
> > +       match = acpi_match_device(dev->driver->acpi_match_table, dev);
> > +       if (!match) {
> > +               dev_err(dev, "Error ACPI match data is missing\n");
> > +               return -ENODEV;
> > +       }
> > +       inst_data = (const struct i2c_inst_data *)match->driver_data;
> > +
> > +       adev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
> > +
>
> > +       /* Count number of clients to instantiate */
> > +       for (i = 0; inst_data[i].type; i++) {}
> > +
> > +       multi = devm_kmalloc(dev,
> > +                       offsetof(struct i2c_multi_inst_data, clients[i]),
> > +                       GFP_KERNEL);
> > +       if (!multi)
> > +               return -ENOMEM;
>
> Here I see the following:
>   - it's kinda unusual use of offsetof()

There are actually plenty of places doing this, this is the normal way
to get the size of a struct which ends with a variable sized array.

I would prefer to keep this as is.

, perhaps i*sizeof() + sizeof()
> would be more understandable
>   - there is no guard against i == 0

i depends on the driver_data, defining a driver_data
where i == 0 is silly, still if this happens nothing bad
will happen, so I see no need for a check for this.

> To solve both, it might be like
>
> struct i2c_multi_inst_data {
>         int num_clients;
>         struct i2c_client *clients;
> };
>
> ...
> multi = devm_kmalloc(sizeof(*multi), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!multi)
>   return -ENOMEM;
>
> multi->clients = devm_kcalloc(i, sizeof(*multi->clients), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (ZERO_PTR_OR_NULL(multi->clients))
>   return -ENOMEM;
>
> But I would like to hear your (other's) opinion(s).

Nack for this option, this just makes the code more
complicated and uses allocs instead of 1 for no good
reason IMHO.

Regards,

Hans


> > +
> > +       multi->no_clients = i;
> > +
> > +       for (i = 0; i < multi->no_clients; i++) {
> > +               memset(&board_info, 0, sizeof(board_info));
> > +               strlcpy(board_info.type, inst_data[i].type, I2C_NAME_SIZE);
> > +               snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "%s-%s", match->id,
> > +                        inst_data[i].type);
> > +               board_info.dev_name = name;
> > +               board_info.irq = 0;
>
> > +               if (inst_data[i].irq_idx != -1) {
>
> > = 0 sounds more robust
>
> > +                       ret = acpi_dev_gpio_irq_get(adev, inst_data[i].irq_idx);
> > +                       if (ret < 0) {
>
> > +                               dev_err(dev, "Error requesting irq at index %d: %d\n",
> > +                                       inst_data[i].irq_idx, ret);
>
> irq -> IRQ in the message.
>
> > +                               goto error;
> > +                       }
> > +                       board_info.irq = ret;
> > +               }
> > +               multi->clients[i] = i2c_acpi_new_device(dev, i, &board_info);
> > +               if (!multi->clients[i]) {
> > +                       dev_err(dev, "Error creating i2c-client, idx %d\n", i);
> > +                       ret = -ENODEV;
> > +                       goto error;
> > +               }
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       platform_set_drvdata(pdev, multi);
> > +       return 0;
> > +
> > +error:
>
> > +       while (--i >= 0)
>
> It can be simple
>
> while (i--)
>
> > +               i2c_unregister_device(multi->clients[i]);
> > +
> > +       return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int i2c_multi_inst_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > +       struct i2c_multi_inst_data *multi = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > +       int i;
> > +
> > +       for (i = 0; i < multi->no_clients; i++)
> > +               i2c_unregister_device(multi->clients[i]);
> > +
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct i2c_inst_data bsg1160_data[]  = {
> > +       { "bmc150_accel", 0 },
> > +       { "bmc150_magn", -1 },
> > +       { "bmg160", -1 },
> > +       {}
> > +};
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Note new device-ids must also be added to i2c_multi_instantiate_ids in
> > + * drivers/acpi/scan.c: acpi_device_enumeration_by_parent().
> > + */
> > +static const struct acpi_device_id i2c_multi_inst_acpi_ids[] = {
> > +       { "BSG1160", (unsigned long)bsg1160_data },
> > +       { }
> > +};
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, i2c_multi_inst_acpi_ids);
> > +
> > +static struct platform_driver i2c_multi_inst_driver = {
> > +       .driver = {
> > +               .name = "I2C multi instantiate pseudo device driver",
>
> > +               .acpi_match_table = ACPI_PTR(i2c_multi_inst_acpi_ids),
>
> We don't need ACPI_PTR for the driver which depends on ACPI.
> In the general case we have an inconsistency with variable definition
> (might be unused).
>
> > +       },
> > +       .probe = i2c_multi_inst_probe,
> > +       .remove = i2c_multi_inst_remove,
> > +};
> > +module_platform_driver(i2c_multi_inst_driver);
> > +
> > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("I2C multi instantiate pseudo device driver");
> > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>");
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> > --
> > 2.18.0