On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 15:04 +0800, Haiyue Wang wrote:
> When PCH works under eSPI mode, the PMC (Power Management Controller)
> in
> PCH is waiting for SUS_ACK from BMC after it alerts SUS_WARN. It is in
> dead loop if no SUS_ACK assert. This is the basic requirement for the
> BMC
> works as eSPI slave.
So, do we have an agreement that the driver should go in this shape w/o
interacting with SPI subsystem?
Also few comments below.
> +config ASPEED_ESPI_SLAVE
> + depends on (ARCH_ASPEED || COMPILE_TEST) && REGMAP_MMIO
I would rather split this to two
depends on REGMAP_MMIO
depends on ARCH_ASPEED || COMPILE_TEST
> + tristate "Aspeed ast2500 eSPI slave device driver"
> + ---help---
> + Control Aspeed ast2500 eSPI slave controller to handle
> event
> + which needs the firmware's processing.
> +#include <linux/of.h>
What exactly requires this header?
> +static int aspeed_espi_slave_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct aspeed_espi_slave_data *priv;
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + struct resource *res;
> + void __iomem *regs;
> + int rc;
> +
> + dev_set_name(dev, DEVICE_NAME);
Do this after checks and memory allocations.
> +
> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> + regs = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, res);
> + if (IS_ERR(regs))
> + return PTR_ERR(regs);
> +
> + priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!priv)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + priv->map = devm_regmap_init_mmio(dev, regs,
> &espi_slave_regmap_cfg);
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->map))
> + return PTR_ERR(priv->map);
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id of_espi_slave_match_table[] = {
> + { .compatible = "aspeed,ast2500-espi-slave" },
> + { }
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, of_espi_slave_match_table);
This one should be closer to the struct of_device_id.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
