[Skiboot] [PATCH v2 2/5] hdata/i2c: ignore i2c devs marked as unknown in the hdat

[Claudio Carvalho]

On 01/09/2017 01:03, Oliver wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Claudio Carvalho
> <cclaudio at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Some I2C devices are marked as unknown in the hdat. We don't need to add
>> them to the device tree, so this just log them.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Claudio Carvalho <cclaudio at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   hdata/i2c.c | 11 +++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/hdata/i2c.c b/hdata/i2c.c
>> index cc127d5..bfb5b48 100644
>> --- a/hdata/i2c.c
>> +++ b/hdata/i2c.c
>> @@ -226,6 +226,17 @@ int parse_i2c_devs(const struct HDIF_common_hdr *hdr, int idata_index,
>>                   */
>>                  i2c_addr = dev->i2c_addr >> 1;
>>
>> +               /*
>> +                * Some i2c devs are marked as unknown in the hdat.
>> +                * Ignoring them.
>> +                */
>> +               if (dev->type == 0xFF) {
>> +                       prlog(PR_INFO, "HDAT I2C: ignoring e%dp%d - unknown@%x "
>> +                             "(port 0x%x)\n", dev->i2cm_engine,
>> +                             dev->i2cm_port, i2c_addr, dev->i2c_port);
>> +                       continue;
>> +               }
>> +
> I kept these in the device-tree since I figured that we would want to
> know about them even if we don't know what they are. I don't have any
> strong opinions about it though so just logging it is fine with me.

I also don't have any strong opinion about that. I proposed this patch 
because I don't know if an unknown i2c device like that could cause any 
problem in the kernel. Probably it would be better to keep them in the 
device tree even if firmware knows nothing about them.

I will drop this patch

Thanks

Claudio

>
>>                  prlog(PR_TRACE, "HDAT I2C: found e%dp%d - %x\n",
>>                          dev->i2cm_engine, dev->i2cm_port, i2c_addr);
>>
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
> Reviewed-by: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall at gmail.com>
>