Add device HID AMDI0510 to match the I2C controlers on AMD Seattle platform
Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <[email protected]>
---
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
index 57f623b..a027154 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
@@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id dw_i2c_acpi_match[] = {
{ "80860F41", 0 },
{ "808622C1", 0 },
{ "AMD0010", 0 },
+ { "AMDI0510", 0 },
{ }
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, dw_i2c_acpi_match);
--
2.5.0
Hi Mika,
On 12/15/15 15:55, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> Add device HID AMDI0510 to match the I2C controlers on AMD Seattle platform
>
> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> index 57f623b..a027154 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> @@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id dw_i2c_acpi_match[] = {
> { "80860F41", 0 },
> { "808622C1", 0 },
> { "AMD0010", 0 },
> + { "AMDI0510", 0 },
> { }
Since this driver seems to be used by several SOCs, and we have been
adding the HID from various SOC vendors. Do you think it would be better
to assign a CID so that each SOC vendor can specify in their ACPI DSDT
and we can match them here?
Then, we can also associate the FMCN and SSCN along with the CID, and
guarantee compatibility.
Thanks,
Suravee
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, dw_i2c_acpi_match);
>
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 08:14:34PM -0600, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> Hi Mika,
>
> On 12/15/15 15:55, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >Add device HID AMDI0510 to match the I2C controlers on AMD Seattle platform
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <[email protected]>
> >---
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> >index 57f623b..a027154 100644
> >--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> >+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> >@@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id dw_i2c_acpi_match[] = {
> > { "80860F41", 0 },
> > { "808622C1", 0 },
> > { "AMD0010", 0 },
> >+ { "AMDI0510", 0 },
> > { }
>
> Since this driver seems to be used by several SOCs, and we have been adding
> the HID from various SOC vendors. Do you think it would be better to assign
> a CID so that each SOC vendor can specify in their ACPI DSDT and we can
> match them here?
Sure _CID would work here.
> Then, we can also associate the FMCN and SSCN along with the CID, and
> guarantee compatibility.
Well, the driver checks those everytime it finds that the device has
ACPI companion regardless of _HID/_CID.
On 12/16/2015 03:16 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 08:14:34PM -0600, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> Hi Mika,
>>
>> On 12/15/15 15:55, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>>> Add device HID AMDI0510 to match the I2C controlers on AMD Seattle platform
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 1 +
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
>>> index 57f623b..a027154 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
>>> @@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id dw_i2c_acpi_match[] = {
>>> { "80860F41", 0 },
>>> { "808622C1", 0 },
>>> { "AMD0010", 0 },
>>> + { "AMDI0510", 0 },
>>> { }
>>
>> Since this driver seems to be used by several SOCs, and we have been adding
>> the HID from various SOC vendors. Do you think it would be better to assign
>> a CID so that each SOC vendor can specify in their ACPI DSDT and we can
>> match them here?
>
> Sure _CID would work here.
Do you know if Synopsys has already provided a CID that we can use for
this? If not, who do you think should provide this? Also, do you think
the FMCN and SSCN should be documented somewhere in the spec so that FW
and OSes can agree upon going forward?
>
>> Then, we can also associate the FMCN and SSCN along with the CID, and
>> guarantee compatibility.
>
> Well, the driver checks those everytime it finds that the device has
> ACPI companion regardless of _HID/_CID.
Not sure what you mean by "device has ACPI companion". Do you mean the
driver check those for every matched devices here?
Thanks,
Suravee
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 08:29:38AM -0600, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>
>
> On 12/16/2015 03:16 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 08:14:34PM -0600, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >>Hi Mika,
> >>
> >>On 12/15/15 15:55, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >>>Add device HID AMDI0510 to match the I2C controlers on AMD Seattle platform
> >>>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <[email protected]>
> >>>---
> >>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 1 +
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>
> >>>diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> >>>index 57f623b..a027154 100644
> >>>--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> >>>+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> >>>@@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id dw_i2c_acpi_match[] = {
> >>> { "80860F41", 0 },
> >>> { "808622C1", 0 },
> >>> { "AMD0010", 0 },
> >>>+ { "AMDI0510", 0 },
> >>> { }
> >>
> >>Since this driver seems to be used by several SOCs, and we have been adding
> >>the HID from various SOC vendors. Do you think it would be better to assign
> >>a CID so that each SOC vendor can specify in their ACPI DSDT and we can
> >>match them here?
> >
> >Sure _CID would work here.
>
> Do you know if Synopsys has already provided a CID that we can use for this?
No.
> If not, who do you think should provide this?
Why can't you make _CID for AMD part only? For Intel we are going to get
new IDs for every major SoC release no matter what.
> Also, do you think the FMCN
> and SSCN should be documented somewhere in the spec so that FW and OSes can
> agree upon going forward?
Since this is designware I2C specific thing it should not be part of the
ACPI spec, I think.
But, yes I agree should be documented *somewhere* ;-)
> >>Then, we can also associate the FMCN and SSCN along with the CID, and
> >>guarantee compatibility.
> >
> >Well, the driver checks those everytime it finds that the device has
> >ACPI companion regardless of _HID/_CID.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "device has ACPI companion". Do you mean the
> driver check those for every matched devices here?
That's right:
if (has_acpi_companion(&pdev->dev))
dw_i2c_acpi_configure(pdev);
Mika,
On 12/16/2015 8:54 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 08:29:38AM -0600, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >On 12/16/2015 03:16 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
>>> > >On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 08:14:34PM -0600, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>>>> > >>Hi Mika,
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>On 12/15/15 15:55, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>>>>> > >>>Add device HID AMDI0510 to match the I2C controlers on AMD Seattle platform
>>>>> > >>>
>>>>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit<[email protected]>
>>>>> > >>>---
>>>>> > >>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 1 +
>>>>> > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>> > >>>
>>>>> > >>>diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
>>>>> > >>>index 57f623b..a027154 100644
>>>>> > >>>--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
>>>>> > >>>+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
>>>>> > >>>@@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id dw_i2c_acpi_match[] = {
>>>>> > >>> { "80860F41", 0 },
>>>>> > >>> { "808622C1", 0 },
>>>>> > >>> { "AMD0010", 0 },
>>>>> > >>>+ { "AMDI0510", 0 },
>>>>> > >>> { }
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>Since this driver seems to be used by several SOCs, and we have been adding
>>>> > >>the HID from various SOC vendors. Do you think it would be better to assign
>>>> > >>a CID so that each SOC vendor can specify in their ACPI DSDT and we can
>>>> > >>match them here?
>>> > >
>>> > >Sure _CID would work here.
>> >
>> >Do you know if Synopsys has already provided a CID that we can use for this?
> No.
>
>> >If not, who do you think should provide this?
> Why can't you make _CID for AMD part only? For Intel we are going to get
> new IDs for every major SoC release no matter what.
>
Actually, after discussed with the team. We have decided to go with the
AMDI0510 at this point, and we will reuse this as CID in future SOC if
it contains compatible I2C controller.
Thanks,
Suravee