| Message ID | 20180104164013.64456-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Bin Meng |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [U-Boot,v1,1/2] x86: tangier: Use actual GPIO hardware numbers | expand |
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 12:40 AM, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > The recent commit 03c4749dd6c7 > ("gpio / ACPI: Drop unnecessary ACPI GPIO to Linux GPIO translation") > in the Linux kernel reveals the issue we have in ACPI tables here, > i.e. we must use hardware numbers for GPIO resources and, > taking into consideration that GPIO and pin control are *different* IPs > on Intel Tangier, we need to supply numbers properly. > > Besides that, it improves user experience since the official documentation > for Intel Edison board is referring to GPIO hardware numbering scheme. > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > --- > > Bin, this is kinda urgent fix. I wouldn't like to have a release with > wrong numbering scheme, although there is none users yet, only couple > amateurs that are experimenting with the code. > > arch/x86/include/asm/arch-tangier/acpi/southcluster.asl | 10 +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > Acked-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
On 4 January 2018 at 09:40, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > The recent commit 03c4749dd6c7 > ("gpio / ACPI: Drop unnecessary ACPI GPIO to Linux GPIO translation") > in the Linux kernel reveals the issue we have in ACPI tables here, > i.e. we must use hardware numbers for GPIO resources and, > taking into consideration that GPIO and pin control are *different* IPs > on Intel Tangier, we need to supply numbers properly. > > Besides that, it improves user experience since the official documentation > for Intel Edison board is referring to GPIO hardware numbering scheme. > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > --- > > Bin, this is kinda urgent fix. I wouldn't like to have a release with > wrong numbering scheme, although there is none users yet, only couple > amateurs that are experimenting with the code. Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> > > arch/x86/include/asm/arch-tangier/acpi/southcluster.asl | 10 +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote: > On 4 January 2018 at 09:40, Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> The recent commit 03c4749dd6c7 >> ("gpio / ACPI: Drop unnecessary ACPI GPIO to Linux GPIO translation") >> in the Linux kernel reveals the issue we have in ACPI tables here, >> i.e. we must use hardware numbers for GPIO resources and, >> taking into consideration that GPIO and pin control are *different* IPs >> on Intel Tangier, we need to supply numbers properly. >> >> Besides that, it improves user experience since the official documentation >> for Intel Edison board is referring to GPIO hardware numbering scheme. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> >> --- >> >> Bin, this is kinda urgent fix. I wouldn't like to have a release with >> wrong numbering scheme, although there is none users yet, only couple >> amateurs that are experimenting with the code. > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> applied to u-boot-x86, thanks!
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/arch-tangier/acpi/southcluster.asl b/arch/x86/include/asm/arch-tangier/acpi/southcluster.asl index 288b57cb80..8162df59b5 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/arch-tangier/acpi/southcluster.asl +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/arch-tangier/acpi/southcluster.asl @@ -173,13 +173,13 @@ Device (PCI0) Name (RBUF, ResourceTemplate() { GpioIo(Exclusive, PullUp, 0, 0, IoRestrictionOutputOnly, - "\\_SB.PCI0.GPIO", 0, ResourceConsumer, , ) { 91 } + "\\_SB.PCI0.GPIO", 0, ResourceConsumer, , ) { 110 } GpioIo(Exclusive, PullUp, 0, 0, IoRestrictionOutputOnly, - "\\_SB.PCI0.GPIO", 0, ResourceConsumer, , ) { 92 } + "\\_SB.PCI0.GPIO", 0, ResourceConsumer, , ) { 111 } GpioIo(Exclusive, PullUp, 0, 0, IoRestrictionOutputOnly, - "\\_SB.PCI0.GPIO", 0, ResourceConsumer, , ) { 93 } + "\\_SB.PCI0.GPIO", 0, ResourceConsumer, , ) { 112 } GpioIo(Exclusive, PullUp, 0, 0, IoRestrictionOutputOnly, - "\\_SB.PCI0.GPIO", 0, ResourceConsumer, , ) { 94 } + "\\_SB.PCI0.GPIO", 0, ResourceConsumer, , ) { 113 } }) Method (_CRS, 0, NotSerialized) @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ Device (PCI0) { Connection ( GpioIo(Exclusive, PullDefault, 0, 0, IoRestrictionOutputOnly, - "\\_SB.PCI0.GPIO", 0, ResourceConsumer, , ) { 56 } + "\\_SB.PCI0.GPIO", 0, ResourceConsumer, , ) { 96 } ), WFD3, 1, }
The recent commit 03c4749dd6c7 ("gpio / ACPI: Drop unnecessary ACPI GPIO to Linux GPIO translation") in the Linux kernel reveals the issue we have in ACPI tables here, i.e. we must use hardware numbers for GPIO resources and, taking into consideration that GPIO and pin control are *different* IPs on Intel Tangier, we need to supply numbers properly. Besides that, it improves user experience since the official documentation for Intel Edison board is referring to GPIO hardware numbering scheme. Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> --- Bin, this is kinda urgent fix. I wouldn't like to have a release with wrong numbering scheme, although there is none users yet, only couple amateurs that are experimenting with the code. arch/x86/include/asm/arch-tangier/acpi/southcluster.asl | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)