[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v6 1/4] ACPI / PMIC: Add support for executing PMIC MIPI sequence elements

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 12:15:53PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> DSI LCD panels describe an initialization sequence in the Video BIOS
> Tables using so called MIPI sequences. One possible element in these
> sequences is a PMIC specific element of 15 bytes.
> 
> Although this is not really an ACPI opregion, the ACPI opregion code is the
> closest thing we have. We need to have support for these PMIC specific MIPI
> sequence elements somwhere. Since we already instantiate a special platform
> device for Intel PMICs for the ACPI PMIC OpRegion handler to bind to,
> with PMIC specific implementations of the OpRegion, the handling of MIPI
> sequence PMIC elements fits very well in the ACPI PMIC OpRegion code.
> 
> This commit adds a new intel_soc_pmic_exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element()
> function, which is to be backed by a PMIC specific
> exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element callback. This function will be called by the
> i915 code to execture MIPI sequence PMIC elements.

> +/**
> + * intel_soc_pmic_exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element - Execute PMIC MIPI sequence

I wonder if we need pmic duplication in the name.

> + * @i2c_address:  I2C client address for the PMIC
> + * @reg_address:  PMIC register address
> + * @value:        New value for the register bits to change
> + * @mask:         Mask indicating which register bits to change
> + *
> + * DSI LCD panels describe an initialization sequence in the i915 VBT (Video
> + * BIOS Tables) using so called MIPI sequences. One possible element in these
> + * sequences is a PMIC specific element of 15 bytes.
> + *
> + * This function executes these PMIC specific elements sending the embedded
> + * commands to the PMIC.
> + *
> + * Return 0 on success, < 0 on failure.
> + */
> +int intel_soc_pmic_exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element(u16 i2c_address, u32 reg_address,
> +					      u32 value, u32 mask)
> +{
> +	struct intel_pmic_opregion_data *d;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (!intel_pmic_opregion) {
> +		pr_warn("%s: No PMIC registered\n", __func__);
> +		return -ENXIO;
> +	}
> +
> +	d = intel_pmic_opregion->data;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&intel_pmic_opregion->lock);
> +
> +	if (d->exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element) {

> +		ret = d->exec_mipi_pmic_seq_element(intel_pmic_opregion->regmap,
> +						    i2c_address, reg_address,
> +						    value, mask);

Here it's not quite a dup, but it's implied by the name of structure...

> +	} else {
> +		pr_warn("%s: Not implemented\n", __func__);
> +		pr_warn("%s: i2c-addr: 0x%x reg-addr 0x%x value 0x%x mask 0x%x\n",
> +			__func__, i2c_address, reg_address, value, mask);
> +		ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +	}
> +
> +	mutex_unlock(&intel_pmic_opregion->lock);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko