Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-191670-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 03:08:36 +0000
From: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>
To: Ben Walsh <ben@jubnut.com>
Cc: Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>, Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
	"Dustin L. Howett" <dustin@howett.net>,
	Kieran Levin <ktl@frame.work>,
	Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>,
	Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
	chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] platform/chrome: cros_ec_lpc: Correct ACPI name for
 Framework Laptop
Message-ID: <ZlVKtL7GUHRWkFpf@google.com>
References: <20240515055631.5775-1-ben@jubnut.com>
 <20240515055631.5775-6-ben@jubnut.com>
 <ZkscFnmHeWWma7Nb@google.com>
 <87jzjk1ibr.fsf@jubnut.com>
 <Zk_63rrDJFhN1Y1q@google.com>
 <87cypb12j9.fsf@jubnut.com>
 <ZlKPwlF86Oe8OPK9@google.com>
 <877cff2kpb.fsf@jubnut.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <877cff2kpb.fsf@jubnut.com>

On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 07:06:40PM +0100, Ben Walsh wrote:
> Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 07:35:22PM +0100, Ben Walsh wrote:
> 
> >> I could add a new quirk which provides an alternative ACPI match table
> >> to be used instead of the default. In the default case the match_table
> >> will contain only "GOOG0004" as before. But in the Framework EC case the
> >> match table will be "PNP0C09".
> >
> > I think it doesn't work as the current quirk is handling in
> > cros_ec_lpc_probe() which is after matching.
> 
> I was thinking of a new quirk called CROS_EC_LPC_QUIRK_ACPI_MATCH, and
> putting it in cros_ec_lpc_init(), not cros_ec_lpc_probe(). Do we have to
> do all quirk handling in cros_ec_lpc_probe()?

No, but there is already code in cros_ec_lpc_probe() for handling quirks and
we would like to reuse them if we could.

Also a possible issue: MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() wouldn't work if the table changes
during runtime.

> 
> > My original idea: would it be possible to get the `adev` in cros_ec_lpc_probe()
> > via any lookup API?  If yes, it could still use DMI match and get `adev` if
> > required.
> 
> That works; I've tested it.
> 
> In this scenario we're not using the existing PNP0C09 platform device,
> which means I can't look at
> /sys/bus/acpi/devices/PNP0C09\:00/physical_node/driver and see the
> driver. Is this OK?
> 
> (Note that ACPI_COMPANION_SET() doesn't fix this. You can use
> acpi_bind_one() but that seems more like internal plumbing).

As long as ACPI_COMPANION() in the driver can get the correct `adev`, I guess
it's fine.  Otherwise, put the `adev` to somewhere device specific (e.g.
struct cros_ec_lpc) should also work.