Hi Rafael,
On 1/25/2018 12:36 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 01/25/2018 08:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Sinan Kaya <ok...@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>> From: Auger Eric <eric.au...@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> If I2C is built as a module, ACPI_I2C_OPREGION cannot be set
>>> and any ACPI opregion calls targeting I2C fail with no opregion found.
>>>
>>> Commit da3c6647ee08 ("I2C/ACPI: Clean up I2C ACPI code and Add
>>> CONFIG_I2C_ACPI config") says following:
>>>
>>> "Current there is a race between removing I2C ACPI operation region
>>> and ACPI AML code accessing."
>>>
>>> This patch forces core I2C support to be compiled as a built-in
>>> module if ACPI is selected as code is not ready for dynamic module
>>> removal.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <ok...@codeaurora.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 2 ++
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>>> index 4650539..5b48098 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>>> @@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ menuconfig ACPI
>>> depends on IA64 || X86 || ARM64
>>> depends on PCI
>>> select PNP
>>> + # force building I2C in on ACPI systems, for opregion availability
>>> + imply I2C
>>> default y if (IA64 || X86)
>>> help
>>> Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) support for
>>> --
>>
>> I'm not sure how much this helps.
>>
>> I2C opregions will only work if the requisite I2C controller driver is
>> present anyway and this change doesn't guarantee that AFAICS.
>>
>> OTOH, there are systems using ACPI without I2C opregions, so are we
>> really better off by forcing everybody using ACPI to also build I2C?
>
> Definitely not.
>
Where do we stand on this? Do you have a better suggestion?
Sinan
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux
Foundation Collaborative Project.
