| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
Change return code to be in align with OF and built-in device properties error
codes. In particular -EINVAL means property is not found.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
The correct scope for looking up the objects to generate data packages for
data-only subnodes pointed to by another data-only subnode is the scope
of the parent of that subnode and not the scope containing the _DSD object
at the top of the hierarchy (the latter works only if all of the objects
returning data-only subnode packages in a given hierarchy are in the same
scope).
Fix the code to work as expected.
Fixes: 445b0eb058f5 (ACPI / property: Add support for data-only subnodes)
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Tested-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
|
|
Make device_get_next_child_node() work with ACPI data-only subnodes
introduced previously.
Namely, replace acpi_get_next_child() with acpi_get_next_subnode()
that can handle (and return) child device objects as well as child
data-only subnodes of the given device and modify the ACPI part
of the GPIO subsystem to handle data-only subnodes returned by it.
To that end, introduce acpi_node_get_gpiod() taking a struct
fwnode_handle pointer as the first argument. That argument may
point to an ACPI device object as well as to a data-only subnode
and the function should do the right thing (ie. look for the matching
GPIO descriptor correctly) in either case.
Next, modify fwnode_get_named_gpiod() to use acpi_node_get_gpiod()
instead of acpi_get_gpiod_by_index() which automatically causes
devm_get_gpiod_from_child() to work with ACPI data-only subnodes
that may be returned by device_get_next_child_node() which in turn
is required by the users of that function (the gpio_keys_polled
and gpio-leds drivers).
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Tested-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
|
|
Modify is_acpi_node() to return "true" for ACPI data-only subnodes as
well as for ACPI device objects and change the name of to_acpi_node()
to to_acpi_device_node() so it is clear that it covers ACPI device
objects only. Accordingly, introduce to_acpi_data_node() to cover
data-only subnodes in an analogous way.
With that, make the fwnode_property_* family of functions work with
ACPI data-only subnodes introduced previously.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Tested-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
|
|
Add infrastructure needed to expose data-only subnodes of ACPI
device objects introduced previously via sysfs.
Each data-only subnode is represented as a sysfs directory under
the directory corresponding to its parent object (a device or a
data-only subnode). Each of them has a "path" attribute (containing
the full ACPI namespace path to the object the subnode data come from)
at this time.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Tested-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
|
|
In some cases, the information expressed via device properties is
hierarchical by nature. For example, the properties of a composite
device consisting of multiple semi-dependent components may need
to be represented in the form of a tree of property data sets
corresponding to specific components of the device.
Unfortunately, using ACPI device objects for this purpose turns out
to be problematic, mostly due to the assumption made by some operating
systems (that platform firmware generally needs to work with) that
each device object in the ACPI namespace represents a device requiring
a separate driver. That assumption leads to complications which
reportedly are impractically difficult to overcome and a different
approach is needed for the sake of interoperability.
The approach implemented here is based on extending _DSD via pointers
(links) to additional ACPI objects returning data packages formatted
in accordance with the _DSD formatting rules defined by Section 6.2.5
of ACPI 6. Those additional objects are referred to as data-only
subnodes of the device object containing the _DSD pointing to them.
The links to them need to be located in a separate section of the
_DSD data package following UUID dbb8e3e6-5886-4ba6-8795-1319f52a966b
referred to as the Hierarchical Data Extension UUID as defined in [1].
Each of them is represented by a package of two strings. The first
string in that package (the key) is regarded as the name of the
data-only subnode pointed to by the link. The second string in it
(the target) is expected to hold the ACPI namespace path (possibly
utilizing the usual ACPI namespace search rules) of an ACPI object
evaluating to a data package extending the _DSD.
The device properties initialization code follows those links,
creates a struct acpi_data_node object for each of them to store
the data returned by the ACPI object pointed to by it and processes
those data recursively (which may lead to the creation of more
struct acpi_data_node objects if the returned data package contains
the Hierarchical Data Extension UUID section with more links in it).
All of the struct acpi_data_node objects are present until the the
ACPI device object containing the _DSD with links to them is deleted
and they are deleted along with that object.
[1]: http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/_DSD-hierarchical-data-extension-UUID-v1.pdf
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Tested-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
|
|
Move the extraction of _DSD properties from acpi_init_properties()
to a separate routine called acpi_extract_properties() to make the
subsequent changes more straightforward.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Tested-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
|
|
Obviously in the current place the 'else' keyword is redundant, though it seems
quite correct when we check if nval is in allowed range.
Reattach the condition branch there.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
Use a #defined symbol ACPI_DT_NAMESPACE_HID instead of the PRP0001
string.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
|
|
Refine the check for the presence of the "compatible" property
if the PRP0001 device ID is present in the device's list of
ACPI/PNP IDs to also print the message if _DSD is missing
entirely or the format of it is incorrect.
One special case to take into accout is that the "compatible"
property need not be provided for devices having the PRP0001
device ID in their lists of ACPI/PNP IDs if they are ancestors
of PRP0001 devices with the "compatible" property present.
This is to cover heriarchies of device objects where the kernel
is only supposed to use a struct device representation for the
topmost one and the others represent, for example, functional
blocks of a composite device.
While at it, reduce the log level of the message to "info"
and reduce the log level of the "broken _DSD" message to
"debug" (noise reduction).
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
|
|
The size_prop argument of the recently added function
acpi_dev_get_property_reference() is not used by the only current
caller of that function and is very unlikely to be used at any time
going forward.
Namely, for a property whose value is a list of items each containing
a references to a device object possibly accompanied by some integers,
the number of items in the list can always be computed as the number
of elements of type ACPI_TYPE_LOCAL_REFERENCE in the property package.
Thus it should never be necessary to provide an additional "cells"
property with a value equal to the number of items in that list. It
also should never be necessary to provide a "cells" property specifying
how many integers are supposed to be following each reference.
For this reason, drop the size_prop argument from
acpi_dev_get_property_reference() and update its caller accordingly.
Link: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=141511255610556&w=2
Suggested-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Tested-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
We have lots of existing Device Tree enabled drivers and allocating
separate _HID for each is not feasible. Instead we allocate special _HID
"PRP0001" that means that the match should be done using Device Tree
compatible property using driver's .of_match_table instead if the driver
is missing .acpi_match_table.
If there is a need to distinguish from where the device is enumerated
(DT/ACPI) driver can check dev->of_node or ACPI_COMPATION(dev).
Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
Add a uniform interface by which device drivers can request device
properties from the platform firmware by providing a property name
and the corresponding data type. The purpose of it is to help to
write portable code that won't depend on any particular platform
firmware interface.
The following general helper functions are added:
device_property_present()
device_property_read_u8()
device_property_read_u16()
device_property_read_u32()
device_property_read_u64()
device_property_read_string()
device_property_read_u8_array()
device_property_read_u16_array()
device_property_read_u32_array()
device_property_read_u64_array()
device_property_read_string_array()
The first one allows the caller to check if the given property is
present. The next 5 of them allow single-valued properties of
various types to be retrieved in a uniform way. The remaining 5 are
for reading properties with multiple values (arrays of either numbers
or strings).
The interface covers both ACPI and Device Trees.
This change set includes material from Mika Westerberg and Aaron Lu.
Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Acked-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
Device Tree is used in many embedded systems to describe the system
configuration to the OS. It supports attaching properties or name-value
pairs to the devices it describe. With these properties one can pass
additional information to the drivers that would not be available
otherwise.
ACPI is another configuration mechanism (among other things) typically
seen, but not limited to, x86 machines. ACPI allows passing arbitrary
data from methods but there has not been mechanism equivalent to Device
Tree until the introduction of _DSD in the recent publication of the
ACPI 5.1 specification.
In order to facilitate ACPI usage in systems where Device Tree is
typically used, it would be beneficial to standardize a way to retrieve
Device Tree style properties from ACPI devices, which is what we do in
this patch.
If a given device described in ACPI namespace wants to export properties it
must implement _DSD method (Device Specific Data, introduced with ACPI 5.1)
that returns the properties in a package of packages. For example:
Name (_DSD, Package () {
ToUUID("daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301"),
Package () {
Package () {"name1", <VALUE1>},
Package () {"name2", <VALUE2>},
...
}
})
The UUID reserved for properties is daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301
and is documented in the ACPI 5.1 companion document called "_DSD
Implementation Guide" [1], [2].
We add several helper functions that can be used to extract these
properties and convert them to different Linux data types.
The ultimate goal is that we only have one device property API that
retrieves the requested properties from Device Tree or from ACPI
transparent to the caller.
[1] http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/_DSD-implementation-guide-toplevel.htm
[2] http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/_DSD-device-properties-UUID.pdf
Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Reviewed-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
