Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201029212930.GE15024@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
 <20201029222215.GI4077@smile.fi.intel.com> <20201029225124.GI15024@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
 <60b36af2-ad57-000b-76e4-379e1b58a3a0@gmail.com> <20201113162231.GO7524@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
 <CAHp75VeGJKMeY-reNWgypVzJ6Myz5S2RXJPHqbPH5kzLYX3G4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201116085349.GA6540@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <CAHp75Ve-O4u1B=dvC+HT-sg=YnoWSuV6kUkPmBSOx4w9OgoOoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201116141038.GJ6540@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <3646e11c-a101-74e3-2eb4-7abf29937e9d@gmail.com>
 <20201116161636.GC4077@smile.fi.intel.com> <3976eac8-2a21-a619-1dba-85212ac4b4b1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3976eac8-2a21-a619-1dba-85212ac4b4b1@gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 18:42:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VcEb373m=WjP5nPtEUMiiKga2_5w1YPB-T=VtvjaFh7Ww@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 9/9] ipu3-cio2: Add functionality allowing
 software_node connections to sensors on platforms designed for Windows
To:     Dan Scally <djrscally@gmail.com>
Cc:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com,
        "Krogerus, Heikki" <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com,
        kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com,
        Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Tian Shu Qiu <tian.shu.qiu@intel.com>,
        Bingbu Cao <bingbu.cao@intel.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
        Yong Zhi <yong.zhi@intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Tsuchiya Yuto <kitakar@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 2:02 PM Dan Scally <djrscally@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 16/11/2020 16:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 02:15:01PM +0000, Dan Scally wrote:
> >> On 16/11/2020 14:10, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> I thought we were looking for ACPI devices, not companion devices, in
> >>> order to extract information from the DSDT and store it in a software
> >>> node. I could very well be wrong though.
> >> This is correct - the code to fetch the various resources we're lookin=
g
> >> at all uses acpi_device. Whether using Andy's iterator suggestions or
> >> previous bus_for_each_dev(&acpi_bus_type...) I'm just getting the
> >> acpi_device via to_acpi_dev() and using that.
> > If you try to get an I=C2=B2C ore SPI device out of pure ACPI device (w=
ith given
> > APCI _HID) you will fail. So, it's not correct. You are retrieving comp=
anion
> > devices, while they are still in the struct acpi_device.
> >
> > And don't ask me, why it's so. I wasn't designed that and didn't affect=
 any
> > decision made there.
>
> Well, in terms of the actual device we're getting, I don't think we're
> fundamentally doing anything different between the methods...unless I'm
> really mistaken.
>
>
> Originally implementation was like:
>
>
> const char *supported_devices[] =3D {
>
>         "OVTI2680",
>
> };
>
>
> static int cio2_bridge_connect_supported_devices(void)
>
> {
>
>         struct acpi_device *adev;
>
>         int i;
>
>         for (i =3D 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(supported_devices); i++) {
>
>                 adev =3D
> acpi_dev_get_first_match_dev(supported_devices[i], NULL, -1);
>
> ...
>
> }
>
>
> and acpi_dev_get_first_match_dev() likewise just returns adev via
> to_acpi_device(dev).
>
>
> So, maybe we don't need to do the iterating over all devices with
> matching _HID at all, in which case it can be dropped, but if we're
> doing it then I can't see that it's different to the original
> implementation in terms of the struct acpi_device we're working with or
> the route taken to get it.
>
>
> Either way; ACPI maintainers asked to be CC'd on the next patchset
> anyway, so they'll see what we're doing and be able to weigh in.

Implementation wise the two approaches are quite similar for now, indeed.
I would rather go with an iterator approach for a simple reason, EFI
code already has something which may utilize iterators rather than
using their home grown solution.

--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko