Re: [PATCH 18/18] ipu3: Add driver for dummy INT3472 ACPI device

[Dan Scally]

On 01/12/2020 19:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 09:06:38PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 09:05:23PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 08:55:48PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you think the Windows driver would use DMI ?
>>> Linux is using DMI for quirks.
>>>
>>>> That seems quite
>>>> unlikely to me, given how they would have to release a new driver binary
>>>> for every machine. I'm pretty sure that a different mechanism is used to
>>>> identify camera integration, and I think it would make sense to follow
>>>> the same approach. That would allow us to avoid large tables of DMI
>>>> identifiers that would need to be constently updated, potentially making
>>>> user experience better.
>>> All Surface family can be matched in a way as Apple machines [1].
>>>
>>> [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/15/1198
>> But not all Surface machines necessarily have the same camera
>> architecture. My point is that there seems to be identifiers reported in
>> ACPI for the exact purpose of identifying the camera architecture. If we
>> used DMI instead, we would have to handle each machine individually.
> With help of DMI we may narrow down the search.
>
> But again, we are talking about uncertainity. It may be your way (a lot of
> platforms that have different settings), or mine (only a few with more or less
> standard sets of settings).
>
> DMI is simply standard in Linux (people usually easier can grep for quirks for
> a specific platform).
>
> I would rather ask Hans' opinion since he has quite an expertise with DMI for
> good and bad.
>
I have no real preference as to the current method or DMI, but thoughts
that come to mind are:


1. given your info that low byte 0x0c means clock enable, we need to
register a clock too. Do we need to extend this device specific section
to map a clock name, or is it acceptable for them to be nameless (ISTR
that the API will let you fetch a clock using devm_clock_get(dev, NULL);)

2. Given only 0x0b pin is actually a regulator and it's controlling
multiple devices, my plan when we got round to adding the VCM / EEPROM
support was simply to extend those mapping tables so that those
supplementary devices were also able to get that regulator...and the two
would share it. I think, from reading the regulator code and
documentation, that that's all fine - and it won't actually be disabled
until both drivers disable it. Does that sound about right?