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: <159978558757.2295844.13766111546939928492@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.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> <159978558757.2295844.13766111546939928492@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.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:   Fri, 09 Apr 2021 18:59:19 -0700
Message-ID: <161801995912.3764895.7559313428958998666@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: alot/0.9.1
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Stephen Boyd (2020-09-10 17:53:07)
> 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> w=
rote:
> > >>>> @@ -206,6 +209,17 @@ static int ec_device_probe(struct platform_de=
vice *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 cou=
ld
> > >>> 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 'wei=
rd' 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=
 check
> > features way.
> >=20
> > Gwendal, can you confirm that the Pixel Chromebook (Link) is the _only_=
 one
> > affected? This one is the only that comes to my mind but I might miss o=
thers.
> >=20
> > I think that Samus has this flag (I can double check) and this was disc=
ussed
> > with you (long, long time ago :-) )
> >=20
>=20
> Sounds fine by me. I'll wait for Gwendal to inform us.

Anything come of this? I haven't seen any updates.