[RFC PATCH for Juno 1/2] net: smsc911x add support for probing from ACPI
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Date: 2014-09-01 17:05:02
Also in:
linux-acpi, lkml
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 04:06:00PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+/* Configure some sensible defaults for ACPI mode */
+static int smsc911x_probe_config_acpi(struct smsc911x_platform_config *config,
+ acpi_handle *ahandle)
+{
+ if (!ahandle)
+ return -ENOSYS;
+
+ config->phy_interface = PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII;
+
+ config->flags |= SMSC911X_USE_32BIT;
+
+ config->irq_polarity = SMSC911X_IRQ_POLARITY_ACTIVE_HIGH;
+
+ config->irq_type = SMSC911X_IRQ_TYPE_PUSH_PULL;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+#elseI don't like this and it shows issues we have with ACPI on certain ARM platforms. You hard-code these values to match the Juno platform. What if we get another SoC which has different configuration here? For DT, we have the smsc911x_probe_config_dt() which reads the relevant information from DT. I think this kind of configuration would be more suitable as _DSD properties and sharing the similar names with DT (but we go back to the question about who's in charge of the _DSD properties).
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
static int smsc911x_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node; + acpi_handle *ahandle = ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev); struct net_device *dev; struct smsc911x_data *pdata; struct smsc911x_platform_config *config = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);@@ -2436,6 +2464,9 @@ static int smsc911x_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) } retval = smsc911x_probe_config_dt(&pdata->config, np); + if (retval) + retval = smsc911x_probe_config_acpi(&pdata->config, ahandle); +
In most of the ACPI patches so far we check for ACPI first with DT as a fall-back if ACPI is not enabled. This changes here. I would prefer something which probes only ACPI if the ACPI is enabled (run-time, not config) otherwise DT only. E.g. -- Catalin