Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <6b546379-d5ce-f0bd-7907-be36f90c15ed@collabora.com>
References: <20200909224226.2177401-1-swboyd@chromium.org> <CABXOdTeWfuZHLywMU1d+No-NSZ4uusAgkhs=2hNZGFM-uYz2wA@mail.gmail.com> <c3ba5d92-8bfe-30d7-44f0-c8a3e40d1906@collabora.com> <CABXOdTdsVyae9oHKEMSbXOsi5VWUZhLbKVxeNVedc4redZineQ@mail.gmail.com> <6b546379-d5ce-f0bd-7907-be36f90c15ed@collabora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] platform/chrome: Don't populate lightbar device if it isn't there
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Cc:     Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@chromium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To:     Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Sep 2020 17:53:07 -0700
Message-ID: <159978558757.2295844.13766111546939928492@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: alot/0.9.1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Enric Balletbo i Serra (2020-09-10 08:49:42)
> On 10/9/20 16:52, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:32 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
> > <enric.balletbo@collabora.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/9/20 16:18, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 3:42 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> wro=
te:
> >>>> @@ -206,6 +209,17 @@ static int ec_device_probe(struct platform_devi=
ce *pdev)
> >>>>                 }
> >>>>         }
> >>>>
> >>>> +       if (!strcmp(ec_platform->ec_name, CROS_EC_DEV_NAME) &&
> >>>> +           !cros_ec_get_lightbar_version(ec, NULL, NULL)) {
> >>>
> >>> Any idea why the lightbar code doesn't use cros_ec_check_features() ?
> >>> There is a definition for EC_FEATURE_LIGHTBAR, but it doesn't seem to
> >>> be used. It would be much more convenient if that feature check could
> >>> be used instead of moving the get_lightbar_version command and its
> >>> helper function around.
> >>>
> >>
> >> IIRC it was to support a very old device, the Pixel Chromebook (Link).=
 This flag
> >> is not set in this device but has a lightbar, hence we had this 'weird=
' way to
> >> detect the lightbar.
> >>
> >=20
> > If that is the only reason, wouldn't it be better to use something
> > else (eg dmi_match) to determine if the system in question is a  Pixel
> > Chromebook (Link) ?
> >=20
> >              if (!strcmp(ec_platform->ec_name, CROS_EC_DEV_NAME) &&
> >                  (cros_ec_check_features(ec, EC_FEATURE_LIGHTBAR) ||
> >                   dmi_match(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "Link")) {
> >=20
>=20
> That looks a better solution, indeed. And definetely I'd prefer use the c=
heck
> features way.
>=20
> Gwendal, can you confirm that the Pixel Chromebook (Link) is the _only_ o=
ne
> affected? This one is the only that comes to my mind but I might miss oth=
ers.
>=20
> I think that Samus has this flag (I can double check) and this was discus=
sed
> with you (long, long time ago :-) )
>=20

Sounds fine by me. I'll wait for Gwendal to inform us.