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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Remove led/gpio setup from pcengines platform
 driver
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@metux.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     fe@dev.tdt.de, "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@metux.net>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@infradead.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200921215919.3072-1-lists@wildgooses.com>
 <d4b2045c-769b-4998-64cc-682c01c105fb@wildgooses.com>
 <8058a804-a793-a5f8-d086-0bb0f600aef9@metux.net>
 <65efe44a-bbef-f982-462a-385fffe493a0@wildgooses.com>
 <0de126c4-f2aa-a817-0a38-32bf3ede84d1@redhat.com>
From:   Ed W <lists@wildgooses.com>
Message-ID: <e953f3ee-2db1-1523-cd84-6acb26751a15@wildgooses.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Oct 2020 12:21:07 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0de126c4-f2aa-a817-0a38-32bf3ede84d1@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Precedence: bulk

On 14/10/2020 09:41, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> So I have a suggested compromise:
>
> Keep the current LED/gpio setup code, but make executing it conditional
> on the BIOS version and skip the LED/gpio setup when the new BIOS is
> present to avoid having duplicate LED entries, etc. in that case.
>
> I guess this would still break userspace because if I understand things
> correctly the new ACPI based setup uses different LED names ? That
> seems unfortunate, but I guess that from the kernel pov we can just
> blame the BIOS for this, and since we definitely do not want duplicate
> LED entries for the same LED, this seems the least bad choice.
>
> Enrico, would that work for you ? 


I'm cool with this. Enrico?

I may have some time imminently to have a stab at a new patch. Obviously any help structuring this
would be appreciated - it feels clumsy using the existing detection mechanism, I think whatever I
come up with you should kick back and recommend a new board detection structure, but perhaps we can
shortcut that step with a few comments up front?

Cheers

Ed W