diff mbox

i2c: designware: Add device HID for future AMD I2C controller

Message ID 1457609692-25903-1-git-send-email-Xiangliang.Yu@amd.com
State Awaiting Upstream
Headers show

Commit Message

Xiangliang Yu March 10, 2016, 11:34 a.m. UTC
Add device HID AMDI0010 to match the AMD ACPI Vendor ID (AMDI) that
was registered in http://www.uefi.org/acpi_id_list, and the I2C
controller on future AMD paltform will use the HID instead of AMD0010.

Signed-off-by: Xiangliang Yu <Xiangliang.Yu@amd.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c                     | 1 +
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 1 +
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)

Comments

Jarkko Nikula March 10, 2016, 8:32 a.m. UTC | #1
On 03/10/2016 01:34 PM, Xiangliang Yu wrote:
> Add device HID AMDI0010 to match the AMD ACPI Vendor ID (AMDI) that
> was registered in http://www.uefi.org/acpi_id_list, and the I2C
> controller on future AMD paltform will use the HID instead of AMD0010.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiangliang Yu <Xiangliang.Yu@amd.com>
> ---
>   drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c                     | 1 +
>   drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 1 +
>   2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c
> index d507cf6..d0aad06 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c
> @@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_apd_device_ids[] = {
>   	/* Generic apd devices */
>   #ifdef CONFIG_X86_AMD_PLATFORM_DEVICE
>   	{ "AMD0010", APD_ADDR(cz_i2c_desc) },
> +	{ "AMDI0010", APD_ADDR(cz_i2c_desc) },
>   	{ "AMD0020", APD_ADDR(cz_uart_desc) },
>   	{ "AMD0030", },
>   #endif
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> index 438f1b4..d656657 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> @@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id dw_i2c_acpi_match[] = {
>   	{ "80860F41", 0 },
>   	{ "808622C1", 0 },
>   	{ "AMD0010", ACCESS_INTR_MASK },
> +	{ "AMDI0010", ACCESS_INTR_MASK },
>   	{ "AMDI0510", 0 },
>   	{ "APMC0D0F", 0 },
>   	{ }
> --
I guess these changes don't necessarily need to go together? Although I 
think chances to get a conflict is pretty low.

For i2c-designware:
Acked-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Rafael J. Wysocki March 10, 2016, 10:48 p.m. UTC | #2
On Thursday, March 10, 2016 10:32:04 AM Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> On 03/10/2016 01:34 PM, Xiangliang Yu wrote:
> > Add device HID AMDI0010 to match the AMD ACPI Vendor ID (AMDI) that
> > was registered in http://www.uefi.org/acpi_id_list, and the I2C
> > controller on future AMD paltform will use the HID instead of AMD0010.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xiangliang Yu <Xiangliang.Yu@amd.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c                     | 1 +
> >   drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 1 +
> >   2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c
> > index d507cf6..d0aad06 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c
> > @@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_apd_device_ids[] = {
> >   	/* Generic apd devices */
> >   #ifdef CONFIG_X86_AMD_PLATFORM_DEVICE
> >   	{ "AMD0010", APD_ADDR(cz_i2c_desc) },
> > +	{ "AMDI0010", APD_ADDR(cz_i2c_desc) },
> >   	{ "AMD0020", APD_ADDR(cz_uart_desc) },
> >   	{ "AMD0030", },
> >   #endif
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> > index 438f1b4..d656657 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> > @@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id dw_i2c_acpi_match[] = {
> >   	{ "80860F41", 0 },
> >   	{ "808622C1", 0 },
> >   	{ "AMD0010", ACCESS_INTR_MASK },
> > +	{ "AMDI0010", ACCESS_INTR_MASK },
> >   	{ "AMDI0510", 0 },
> >   	{ "APMC0D0F", 0 },
> >   	{ }
> > --
> I guess these changes don't necessarily need to go together? Although I 
> think chances to get a conflict is pretty low.
> 
> For i2c-designware:
> Acked-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>

OK, queued up for 4.6, thanks!

Rafael

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Wolfram Sang March 12, 2016, 4:03 p.m. UTC | #3
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:32:04AM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> On 03/10/2016 01:34 PM, Xiangliang Yu wrote:
> >Add device HID AMDI0010 to match the AMD ACPI Vendor ID (AMDI) that
> >was registered in http://www.uefi.org/acpi_id_list, and the I2C
> >controller on future AMD paltform will use the HID instead of AMD0010.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Xiangliang Yu <Xiangliang.Yu@amd.com>
> >---
> >  drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c                     | 1 +
> >  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 1 +
> >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c
> >index d507cf6..d0aad06 100644
> >--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c
> >+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c
> >@@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_apd_device_ids[] = {
> >  	/* Generic apd devices */
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_AMD_PLATFORM_DEVICE
> >  	{ "AMD0010", APD_ADDR(cz_i2c_desc) },
> >+	{ "AMDI0010", APD_ADDR(cz_i2c_desc) },
> >  	{ "AMD0020", APD_ADDR(cz_uart_desc) },
> >  	{ "AMD0030", },
> >  #endif
> >diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> >index 438f1b4..d656657 100644
> >--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> >+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
> >@@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id dw_i2c_acpi_match[] = {
> >  	{ "80860F41", 0 },
> >  	{ "808622C1", 0 },
> >  	{ "AMD0010", ACCESS_INTR_MASK },
> >+	{ "AMDI0010", ACCESS_INTR_MASK },
> >  	{ "AMDI0510", 0 },
> >  	{ "APMC0D0F", 0 },
> >  	{ }
> >--
> I guess these changes don't necessarily need to go together? Although I
> think chances to get a conflict is pretty low.

I would have preferred seperate patches, too.

> For i2c-designware:
> Acked-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>

For the record:

Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c
index d507cf6..d0aad06 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c
@@ -143,6 +143,7 @@  static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_apd_device_ids[] = {
 	/* Generic apd devices */
 #ifdef CONFIG_X86_AMD_PLATFORM_DEVICE
 	{ "AMD0010", APD_ADDR(cz_i2c_desc) },
+	{ "AMDI0010", APD_ADDR(cz_i2c_desc) },
 	{ "AMD0020", APD_ADDR(cz_uart_desc) },
 	{ "AMD0030", },
 #endif
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
index 438f1b4..d656657 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c
@@ -123,6 +123,7 @@  static const struct acpi_device_id dw_i2c_acpi_match[] = {
 	{ "80860F41", 0 },
 	{ "808622C1", 0 },
 	{ "AMD0010", ACCESS_INTR_MASK },
+	{ "AMDI0010", ACCESS_INTR_MASK },
 	{ "AMDI0510", 0 },
 	{ "APMC0D0F", 0 },
 	{ }