Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] pinctrl: qcom: sdm845: Provide ACPI support

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Mon 10 Jun 02:22 PDT 2019, Lee Jones wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 10:55, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2019, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 10:42, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch provides basic support for booting with ACPI instead
> > > > > of the currently supported Device Tree.  When doing so there are a
> > > > > couple of differences which we need to taken into consideration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Firstly, the SDM850 ACPI tables omit information pertaining to the
> > > > > 4 reserved GPIOs on the platform.  If Linux attempts to touch/
> > > > > initialise any of these lines, the firmware will restart the
> > > > > platform.
> > > > >
> > > > > Secondly, when booting with ACPI, it is expected that the firmware
> > > > > will set-up things like; Regulators, Clocks, Pin Functions, etc in
> > > > > their ideal configuration.  Thus, the possible Pin Functions
> > > > > available to this platform are not advertised when providing the
> > > > > higher GPIOD/Pinctrl APIs with pin information.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > For the ACPI probing boilerplate:
> > > > Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > *However*, I really don't like hardcoding reserved GPIOs like this.
> > > > What guarantee do we have that each and every ACPI system
> > > > incorporating the QCOM0217 device has the exact same list of reserved
> > > > GPIOs?
> > >
> > > This is SDM845 specific, so the chances are reduced.
> > 
> > You don't know that.
> 
> All the evidence I have to hand tells me that this is the case.  Even
> on very closely related variants Qualcomm uses different H/W blocks
> for GPIO.
> 

I presume with this you mean that e.g. the 835 laptops doesn't sport a
QCOM0217?

> > > However, if another SDM845 variant does crop up, also lacking the
> > > "gpios" property, we will have to find another differentiating factor
> > > between them and conduct some matching.  What else can you do with
> > > platforms supporting non-complete/non-forthcoming ACPI tables?
> > >
> > 
> > Either we don't touch any pins at all if they are not referenced
> > explicitly anywhere
> 
> I guess this would require an API change, which is out of scope of
> this patch-set.  Happy to change this implementation later if the
> subsystem allows for it though.
> 

Last time we discussed this the _only_ offender was the loop issuing a
get_direction() on all descs towards the end of
gpiochip_add_data_with_key()

> > or we parse the PEP tables, which seem to cover
> > some of this information (if Bjorn's analysis is correct)
> 
> Maybe someone can conduct some further work on this when we start to
> enable or write a driver for the PEP (Windows-compatible System Power
> Management Controller).  The tables for the PEP look pretty complex,
> so this task would be extremely difficult if not impossible without
> Qualcomm's help.  I wouldn't even know how to extrapolate this
> information from the tables.
> 

Yeah that looks quite different, so I'm not sure how to tie that into
the current driver. But I'm fine with adding this for now, if PEP brings
a different approach we can always rip this out later.

Regards,
Bjorn

> > (if Bjorn's analysis is correct)
> 
> Bjorn is about to provide his Reviewed-by for this implementation.
> 
> -- 
> Lee Jones [?????????]
> Linaro Services Technical Lead
> Linaro.org ??? Open source software for ARM SoCs
> Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog