Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753749AbdC2HEy (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:04:54 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:34313 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753391AbdC2HEv (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 03:04:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:04:47 -0700 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Hans de Goede , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mika Westerberg , Jarkko Nikula , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Irina Tirdea , Bastien Nocera Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/8] gpio: acpi: Even more tighten up ACPI GPIO lookups Message-ID: <20170329070447.GA38261@dtor-ws> References: <20170323194618.26548-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20170323194618.26548-5-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20170323201241.GB2502@dtor-ws> <1490718684.708.37.camel@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1490718684.708.37.camel@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2137 Lines: 70 On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 07:31:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 13:12 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 09:46:14PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > The commit 10cf4899f8af ("gpiolib: tighten up ACPI legacy gpio > > > lookups") > > > prevents to getting same resource twice if the driver asks twice > > > using same > > > > s/same/different/ > > > > > connection ID. > > Oh, yeah, though it didn't fix a potential issue described below. > > > > But the whole idea of fallback might bring some problems. Imagine > > > the case when > > > we have two versions of BIOS/hardware where in one _DSD is > > > introduced along > > > with GPIO resources, but the other one uses just plain GPIO resource > > > for > > > another purpose > > > > > > Case 1: > > > > > > ????Device (DEVX) > > > ????{ > > > ????????... > > > ????????Name (_CRS, ResourceTemplate () > > > ????????{ > > > ????????????GpioIo (Exclusive, PullUp, 0, 0, IoRestrictionInputOnly, > > > ????????????????????"\\_SB.GPO0", 0, ResourceConsumer) {15} > > > ????????}) > > > ????????Name (_DSD, Package () > > > ????????{ > > > ????????????ToUUID("daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301"), > > > ????????????Package () > > > ????????????{ > > > ????????????????Package () {"some-gpios", Package() {^DEVX, 0, 0, 0 > > > }}, > > > ????????????} > > > ????????}) > > > ????} > > > > > > Case 2: > > > > > > ????Device (DEVX) > > > ????{ > > > ????????... > > > ????????Name (_CRS, ResourceTemplate () > > > ????????{ > > > ????????????GpioIo (Exclusive, PullUp, 0, 0, IoRestrictionInputOnly, > > > ????????????????????"\\_SB.GPO0", 0, ResourceConsumer) {27} > > > ????????}) > > > ????} > > > > > > To prevent the possible misconfiguration tighten up even more ACPI > > > GPIO lookups > > > for case without connection ID provided. > > > I wonder if this will break Goodix. Irina, Bastien? > > It would be helpful if anyone can test it. > > Btw, which particular driver do you have in mind that might be broken > after such change? Ah, Goodix is a vendor of touchscreens, right? Yes, and it uses named GPIOs. -- Dmitry