Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1163455AbbKTXVg (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:21:36 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:32857 "EHLO mail-wm0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761134AbbKTXUu (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:20:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151120224929.GA7413@malice.jf.intel.com> References: <1447948165-2343-1-git-send-email-coproscefalo@gmail.com> <1447948165-2343-2-git-send-email-coproscefalo@gmail.com> <20151120224929.GA7413@malice.jf.intel.com> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:20:49 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] toshiba_acpi: Add support for WWAN devices From: Azael Avalos To: Darren Hart Cc: "platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Fabian Koester Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 7419 Lines: 221 Hi Darren, 2015-11-20 15:49 GMT-07:00 Darren Hart : > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 08:49:24AM -0700, Azael Avalos wrote: >> Toshiba laptops with WWAN devices installed cannot use the device unless >> it is attached and powered, similar to how Toshiba Bluetooth devices >> work. >> >> This patch adds support to WWAN devices, introducing three functions, >> one to query the overall status of the wireless devices (RFKill, WLAN, >> BT, WWAN), the second queries WWAN support, and finally the third >> (de)activates the device. >> >> Signed-off-by: Fabian Koester >> Signed-off-by: Azael Avalos > > Thanks Azael, > > A few comments on code flow and one bug I think below. > >> --- >> drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 92 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c >> index c013029..60d1ad9 100644 >> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c >> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c >> @@ -114,6 +114,7 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); >> #define HCI_VIDEO_OUT 0x001c >> #define HCI_HOTKEY_EVENT 0x001e >> #define HCI_LCD_BRIGHTNESS 0x002a >> +#define HCI_WIRELESS 0x0056 >> #define HCI_ACCELEROMETER 0x006d >> #define HCI_KBD_ILLUMINATION 0x0095 >> #define HCI_ECO_MODE 0x0097 >> @@ -148,6 +149,10 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); >> #define SCI_KBD_MODE_ON 0x8 >> #define SCI_KBD_MODE_OFF 0x10 >> #define SCI_KBD_TIME_MAX 0x3c001a >> +#define HCI_WIRELESS_STATUS 0x1 >> +#define HCI_WIRELESS_WWAN 0x3 >> +#define HCI_WIRELESS_WWAN_STATUS 0x2000 >> +#define HCI_WIRELESS_WWAN_POWER 0x4000 >> #define SCI_USB_CHARGE_MODE_MASK 0xff >> #define SCI_USB_CHARGE_DISABLED 0x00 >> #define SCI_USB_CHARGE_ALTERNATE 0x09 >> @@ -197,12 +202,14 @@ struct toshiba_acpi_dev { >> unsigned int kbd_function_keys_supported:1; >> unsigned int panel_power_on_supported:1; >> unsigned int usb_three_supported:1; >> + unsigned int wwan_supported:1; >> unsigned int sysfs_created:1; >> unsigned int special_functions; >> >> bool kbd_led_registered; >> bool illumination_led_registered; >> bool eco_led_registered; >> + bool killswitch; >> }; >> >> static struct toshiba_acpi_dev *toshiba_acpi; >> @@ -1085,6 +1092,87 @@ static int toshiba_hotkey_event_type_get(struct toshiba_acpi_dev *dev, >> return -EIO; >> } >> >> +/* Wireless status (RFKill, WLAN, BT, WWAN) */ >> +static int toshiba_wireless_status(struct toshiba_acpi_dev *dev) >> +{ >> + u32 in[TCI_WORDS] = { HCI_GET, HCI_WIRELESS, 0, 0, 0, 0 }; >> + u32 out[TCI_WORDS]; >> + acpi_status status; >> + >> + in[3] = HCI_WIRELESS_STATUS; >> + status = tci_raw(dev, in, out); >> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) { >> + pr_err("ACPI call to get Wireless status failed\n"); >> + } else if (out[0] == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED) { >> + return -ENODEV; >> + } else if (out[0] == TOS_SUCCESS) { >> + dev->killswitch = >> + (out[2] & HCI_WIRELESS_STATUS) ? true : false; > > This should assign successfully without the need for the ternary operator. You > can also then drop the extra newline. You can always use: > > !!(out[2] & HCI_WIRELESS_STATUS) > > To ensure a 1 or 0 assignment. OK, will change on v3. > >> + return 0; >> + } >> + >> + return -EIO; > > Also, we should be testing for error and do the expected path outside the if > blocks. > > > if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) { > pr_err("ACPI call to get Wireless status failed\n"); > return -EIO; > } > > if (out[0] == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED) > return -ENODEV; > > if (out[0] != TOS_SUCCESS) > return -EIO; > > dev->killswitch = !!(out[2] & HCI_WIRELESS_STATUS); > > return 0; > OK, will change the functions to this style on v3. >> +} >> + >> +/* WWAN */ >> +static void toshiba_wwan_available(struct toshiba_acpi_dev *dev) >> +{ >> + u32 in[TCI_WORDS] = { HCI_GET, HCI_WIRELESS, 0, 0, 0, 0 }; >> + u32 out[TCI_WORDS]; >> + acpi_status status; >> + >> + dev->wwan_supported = 0; >> + >> + /* >> + * WWAN support can be queried by setting the in[3] value to >> + * HCI_WIRELESS_WWAN (0x03). >> + * >> + * If supported, out[0] contains TOS_SUCCESS and out[2] contains >> + * HCI_WIRELESS_WWAN_STATUS (0x2000). >> + * >> + * If not supported, out[0] contains TOS_INPUT_DATA_ERROR (0x8300) >> + * or TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED (0x8000). >> + */ >> + in[3] = HCI_WIRELESS_WWAN; >> + status = tci_raw(dev, in, out); >> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) >> + pr_err("ACPI call to get WWAN status failed\n"); >> + else if (out[0] == TOS_SUCCESS && out[2] == HCI_WIRELESS_WWAN_STATUS) >> + dev->wwan_supported = 1; > > This block similarly intermixes error checking with the primary functional > logic, making it less legible in my opinion. Consider: > > > in[3] = HCI_WIRELESS_WWAN; > status = tci_raw(dev, in, out); > > if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) || (out[0] != TOS_SUCCESS)) { > pr_err("ACPI call to get WWAN status failed\n"); > return; > } > > dev->wwan_supported = (out[2] == HCI_WIRELESS_WWAN_STATUS); > >> +} >> + >> +static int toshiba_wwan_set(struct toshiba_acpi_dev *dev, u32 state) >> +{ >> + u32 in[TCI_WORDS] = { HCI_SET, HCI_WIRELESS, state, 0, 0, 0 }; >> + u32 out[TCI_WORDS]; >> + acpi_status status; >> + >> + in[3] = HCI_WIRELESS_WWAN_STATUS; >> + status = tci_raw(dev, in, out); >> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) { >> + pr_err("ACPI call to set WWAN status failed\n"); >> + return -EIO; >> + } else if (out[0] == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED) { >> + return -ENODEV; >> + } else if (out[0] != TOS_SUCCESS) { >> + return -EIO; >> + } >> + >> + /* >> + * Some devices only need to call HCI_WIRELESS_WWAN_STATUS to >> + * (de)activate the device, but some others need the >> + * HCI_WIRELESS_WWAN_POWER call as well. >> + */ >> + in[3] = HCI_WIRELESS_WWAN_POWER; >> + status = tci_raw(dev, in, out); >> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) >> + pr_err("ACPI call to set WWAN power failed\n"); > > I believe you want a return -EIO here? > Yes, and actually, I think the whole driver functions are like this, I'll check once I get back home and send a separate patch for this issue. >> + else if (out[0] == TOS_NOT_SUPPORTED) >> + return -ENODEV; >> + >> + return out[0] == TOS_SUCCESS ? 0 : -EIO; > > So much ternary! :-) I suppose this one is OK. Alright, once I get back home I'll update these patches according to your comments and send a v3. Cheers Azael -- -- El mundo apesta y vosotros apestais tambien -- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/