[libcamera-devel] Fwd: Surface Go VCM type (was: Need to pass acpi_enforce_resources=lax on the Surface Go (version1))

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 05:02:58PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 10/29/21 13:50, Daniel Scally wrote:

...

> > To throw a spanner in the works though; I noticed this delightful _CRS
> > for the OV9734 sensor of a  Surface Laptop 1 earlier:
> > 
> > Method (_CRS, 0, Serialized)  // _CRS: Current Resource Settings
> > {
> >     Name (SBUF, ResourceTemplate ()
> >     {
> >         I2cSerialBusV2 (0x0036, ControllerInitiated, 0x00061A80,
> >             AddressingMode7Bit, "\\_SB.PCI0.I2C2",
> >             0x00, ResourceConsumer, , Exclusive,
> >             )
> >         I2cSerialBusV2 (0x0050, ControllerInitiated, 0x00061A80,
> >             AddressingMode7Bit, "\\_SB.PCI0.I2C2",
> >             0x00, ResourceConsumer, , Exclusive,
> >             )
> >         I2cSerialBusV2 (0x0051, ControllerInitiated, 0x00061A80,
> >             AddressingMode7Bit, "\\_SB.PCI0.I2C2",
> >             0x00, ResourceConsumer, , Exclusive,
> >             )
> >         I2cSerialBusV2 (0x0052, ControllerInitiated, 0x00061A80,
> >             AddressingMode7Bit, "\\_SB.PCI0.I2C2",
> >             0x00, ResourceConsumer, , Exclusive,
> >             )
> >         I2cSerialBusV2 (0x0053, ControllerInitiated, 0x00061A80,
> >             AddressingMode7Bit, "\\_SB.PCI0.I2C2",
> >             0x00, ResourceConsumer, , Exclusive,
> >             )
> >     })
> >     Return (SBUF) /* \_SB_.PCI0.I2C2.CAMF._CRS.SBUF */
> > }
> 
> Hmm, we do have i2c_acpi_client_count(adev), so it is easy to use
> that and just always use the last resource for the VCM. But that assumes
> that is what is going on here and I have no idea.

You probably composed this message before reading my reply(ies).

...

> Change the first parameter of i2c_acpi_new_device() from
> a struct device * to a struct acpi_device *.
> 
> This is necessary because in some cases we may only have access
> to the fwnode / acpi_device and not to the matching physical-node
> struct device *.

Can we rather create an fwnode based API and then

static inline
struct i2c_client *i2c_acpi_new_device(struct device *dev, int index,
				       struct i2c_board_info *info)
	return i2c_acpi_new_device_by_fwnode(dev_fwnode(), index, info);
}

?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko