Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Reply-To: acooks@rationali.st
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] Enable ACPI-defined peripherals on i2c-piix4 SMBus
To:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>,
        "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@metux.net>
Cc:     Linux I2C <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, platypus-sw@opengear.com,
        "Tobin C . Harding" <me@tobin.cc>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Will Wagner <willw@carallon.com>
References: <20190802145109.38dd4045@endymion>
 <b013c33b-da11-ce5e-08d4-0b24a8575109@metux.net>
 <20190809103340.2ef24523@endymion>
From:   Andrew Cooks <acooks@rationali.st>
Message-ID: <87e83cd9-e9a9-ee58-9ea3-7549ae3b0838@rationali.st>
Date:   Sun, 11 Aug 2019 13:09:59 +1000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190809103340.2ef24523@endymion>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 8/9/19 6:33 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Enrico,
>
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:17:53 +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
>> On 02.08.19 14:51, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>> These patches fix a couple of issues with the i2c-piix4 driver on
>>> AMD Family 16h Model 30h SoCs and add ACPI-based enumeration to the
>>> i2c-piix4 driver.  
>> Can you tell a little bit more about what devices are behind the smbus ?
>> I recall the G-412 SoCs (such as on apu2+ boards) have an Hudson inside
>> and fall into this category. (I'll have to check when back in office),
>> so (as the apu2 platform driver maintainer) I'm very interested in this.
> Unfortunately not. I only picked up from where Andrew Cooks left, due
> to me being way too slow to review his patches. I did not want his work
> to be lost. I was able to test the first 2 patches which fix bugs, but
> not the 3rd one which deals with ACPI devices. There does not seem to
> be any such device on the 2 test machines I have remotely access to.

Thanks for taking a look at these patches and thanks for your many years of support and maintenance.

The patches I submitted were developed for an commercial product, but I am not with the company anymore and do not have access to the hardware. This is the device: https://opengear.com/products/om2200-operations-manager/

The specific peripheral that required ACPI support is the NCT7491, and a driver is available at https://github.com/opengear/nct7491-driver

>> Does the probing need some special BIOS support (or do the necessary
>> table entries already come from aegesa) ?
> I assume that ACPI devices are declared in one of the ACPI tables, so
> it comes from the "BIOS", yes, whatever form it takes these days.
Yes, though unfortunately I didn't get a chance to submit this to the coreboot project and no longer have access to the source.
>
>> I have to admit, I'm still confused by the AMD documentation - haven't
>> found a clear documentation on what peripherals exactly are in the
>> G-412 SoC, just puzzled together that the FCH seems to be an Hudson,
>> probably v2. There also seems to be some relation between smbus and
>> gpio, but the gpio's are directly memory-mapped - no idea whether they
>> just share the same base address register or the gpios are really behind
>> smbus and some hw logic directy maps them into mmio space ...
>> Do you happen to have some more information on that ?
> I remember noticing long ago that SMBus ports were using GPIO pins, so
> these pins could be used for SMBus or for any other purpose. I could
> not find any way to figure out from the registers if a given pin pair
> was used for SMBus or not, which is pretty bad because it means we are
> blindly instantiating ALL possible SMBus ports even if some of the pins
> are used for a completely different purpose. It was over 1 year ago
> though, so I don't remember the details, and my findings then may not
> apply to the most recent hardware.
>
>> By the way: I'm considering collecting some hw documentation in the
>> kernel tree (maybe Documentation/hardware/...) - do you folks think
>> that's a good idea ?
> No. Only documentation specifically related to the Linux kernel should
> live in the kernel tree. OS-neutral documentation must go somewhere
> else.
>
Thanks,

Andrew