Re: [PATCH] platform: int3472: discrete: Support multiple HIDs per GPIO map entry

[Tarang Raval]

Hi Kate,

> Hi Tarang,
>
> Thank you for working on this.
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 7:16 AM Tarang Raval
> <tarang.raval@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Each int3472_gpio_map entry currently maps exactly one ACPI HID to a
> > GPIO quirk. As more sensors needing the same quirk are identified, this
> > means adding a full duplicate table entry per HID, differing only in
> > the HID string, which does not scale.
> >
> > Change int3472_gpio_map::hid to a NULL-terminated hids array so a
> > single entry can match any number of ACPI HIDs, letting new HIDs be
> > added to the relevant array instead of duplicating quirk entries.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Tarang Raval <tarang.raval@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > Identified while reviewing Kate Hsuan's imx471 vana con_id patch, whose
> > two near-identical SONY471A/TBE20A0 entries are collapsed here into
> > one, backed by a new power_enable_hids_vana[] array.
> >
> > This patch is on top of kate's imx471 driver series[1].
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/20260629074026.35490-1-hpa@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#t [1].
> >
> > ---
> >  drivers/platform/x86/intel/int3472/discrete.c | 49 ++++++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/int3472/discrete.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/int3472/discrete.c
> > index adff564bf3fd..f86333e38341 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/int3472/discrete.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/int3472/discrete.c
> > @@ -123,10 +123,21 @@ skl_int3472_gpiod_get_from_temp_lookup(struct int3472_discrete_device *int3472,
> >         return desc;
> >  }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Other vana-supply users (e.g. ST, Toshiba, Sony sensors) can be added to
> > + * this array instead of adding new quirk table entries.
> > + */
> > +static const char * const power_enable_hids_vana[] = {
> Should we have a commit mentioning which laptop model exposed the HID?
> For example
>             /* Lenovo X9-14 and X9-15 */
> > +       "SONY471A",
>             /* Lenovo X1 Carbon G14 */

I'll update in v2.

> > +       "TBE20A0",
> > +       NULL
> > +};
> > +
> >  /**
> >   * struct int3472_gpio_map - Map GPIOs to whatever is expected by the
> >   * sensor driver (as in DT bindings)
> > - * @hid: The ACPI HID of the device without the instance number e.g. INT347E
> > + * @hids: NULL-terminated array of ACPI HIDs of the devices without the
> > + * instance number e.g. INT347E
> >   * @type_from: The GPIO type from ACPI ?SDT
> >   * @type_to: The assigned GPIO type, typically same as @type_from
> >   * @enable_time_us: Enable time in usec for GPIOs mapped to regulators
> > @@ -135,7 +146,7 @@ skl_int3472_gpiod_get_from_temp_lookup(struct int3472_discrete_device *int3472,
> >   * GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH otherwise
> >   */
> >  struct int3472_gpio_map {
> > -       const char *hid;
> > +       const char * const *hids;
> >         u8 type_from;
> >         u8 type_to;
> >         bool polarity_low;
> > @@ -145,38 +156,27 @@ struct int3472_gpio_map {
> >
> >  static const struct int3472_gpio_map int3472_gpio_map[] = {
> >         {       /* mt9m114 designs declare a powerdown pin which controls the regulators */
> > -               .hid = "INT33F0",
> > +               .hids = (const char * const[]) { "INT33F0", NULL },
>
> I think it is bettter to keep the consistent style, the hids array can
> be declared individually like you did for the sony sensor.
>
> for example,
> static const char * const power_enable_hids_vdd[] = {
>       /* mt9m114 */
>       "INT33F0",
>       NULL
> };
>
> ...
>
>   .hids = power_enable_hids_vdd;

I'll update in v2.

> >                 .type_from = INT3472_GPIO_TYPE_POWERDOWN,
> >                 .type_to = INT3472_GPIO_TYPE_POWER_ENABLE,
> >                 .con_id = "vdd",
> >                 .enable_time_us = GPIO_REGULATOR_ENABLE_TIME,
> >         },
> >         {       /* ov7251 driver / DT-bindings expect "enable" as con_id for reset */
> > -               .hid = "INT347E",
> > +               .hids = (const char * const[]) { "INT347E", NULL },
> same here.
>
> >                 .type_from = INT3472_GPIO_TYPE_RESET,
> >                 .type_to = INT3472_GPIO_TYPE_RESET,
> >                 .con_id = "enable",
> >         },
> >         {       /* ov08x40's handshake pin needs a 45 ms delay on some HP laptops */
> > -               .hid = "OVTI08F4",
> > +               .hids = (const char * const[]) { "OVTI08F4", NULL },
> same here.

This shouldn't be a named array like power_enable_hids_vana. Unlike vana,
this entry's enable_time_us (45ms) is a HID-specific quirk, not a shared
property, so a generic power_enable_hids_dvdd array would wrongly imply
future HIDs added to it inherit that same delay.

Except for this one, I'll declare the other HID arrays individually.

> >                 .type_from = INT3472_GPIO_TYPE_HANDSHAKE,
> >                 .type_to = INT3472_GPIO_TYPE_HANDSHAKE,
> >                 .con_id = "dvdd",
> >                 .enable_time_us = 45 * USEC_PER_MSEC,
> >         },
> > -       {       /* imx471 expects "vana" as con_id for power enable */
> > -               .hid = "SONY471A",
> > -               .type_from = INT3472_GPIO_TYPE_POWER_ENABLE,
> > -               .type_to = INT3472_GPIO_TYPE_POWER_ENABLE,
> > -               .con_id = "vana",
> > -               .enable_time_us = GPIO_REGULATOR_ENABLE_TIME,
> > -       },
> > -       {
> > -               /*
> > -                * imx471 (on Lenovo ThinkPads X1 G14) expects "vana" as con_id
> > -                * for power enable
> > -                */
> > -               .hid = "TBE20A0",
> > +       {       /* Sensors which expect "vana" as con_id for power enable */
> > +               .hids = power_enable_hids_vana,
> >                 .type_from = INT3472_GPIO_TYPE_POWER_ENABLE,
> >                 .type_to = INT3472_GPIO_TYPE_POWER_ENABLE,
> >                 .con_id = "vana",
> > @@ -184,6 +184,17 @@ static const struct int3472_gpio_map int3472_gpio_map[] = {
> >         },
> >  };
> >
> > +static bool int3472_gpio_map_hids_match(struct acpi_device *adev,
> > +                                       const char * const *hids)
> > +{
>
> It is better to have a NULL guard here.
>        if (!hids)
>                return false;

Why ?

There is no case where .hids can legitimately be NULL, since every
GPIO mapping entry is meaningless without a HID to match against.

so the NULL check isn't needed.

> > +       for (unsigned int i = 0; hids[i]; i++) {
> > +               if (acpi_dev_hid_uid_match(adev, hids[i], NULL))
> > +                       return true;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       return false;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void int3472_get_con_id_and_polarity(struct int3472_discrete_device *int3472, u8 *type,
> >                                             const char **con_id, unsigned long *gpio_flags,
> >                                             unsigned int *enable_time_us)
> > @@ -200,7 +211,7 @@ static void int3472_get_con_id_and_polarity(struct int3472_discrete_device *int3
> >                 if (*type != int3472_gpio_map[i].type_from)
> >                         continue;
> >
> > -               if (!acpi_dev_hid_uid_match(adev, int3472_gpio_map[i].hid, NULL))
> > +               if (!int3472_gpio_map_hids_match(adev, int3472_gpio_map[i].hids))
> >                         continue;
> >
> >                 dev_dbg(int3472->dev, "mapping type 0x%02x pin to 0x%02x %s\n",
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
>
> I tested this patch and it works.
>
> Tested-by: Kate Hsuan <hpa@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks for testing this patch.

Best Regards,
Tarang