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;
Date:   Sun, 15 Aug 2021 00:47:17 +1200
From:   Luke Jones <luke@ljones.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] asus-wmi: Add support for platform_profile
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Bastien Nocera <hadess@hadess.net>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>
Message-Id: <T6YTXQ.N7QG3527OXWU1@ljones.dev>
In-Reply-To: <UCVTXQ.8ME64G0S1BQ8@ljones.dev>
References: <20210814043103.2535842-1-luke@ljones.dev>
        <20210814043103.2535842-2-luke@ljones.dev>
        <CAHp75VcCzjb7TKZ84iVjJr27+nCcA10n38nwCAGATucfAAMkKA@mail.gmail.com>
        <UCVTXQ.8ME64G0S1BQ8@ljones.dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk

A very quick question: should I be enabling platform_profile by default 
if asus_wmi is enabled in kconfig?

On Sat, Aug 14 2021 at 23:46:06 +1200, Luke Jones <luke@ljones.dev> 
wrote:
> Hi Andy, thanks for the feedback. All is addressed, and some inline 
> comment/reply. New version incoming pending pr_info() vs dev_info()
> 
> On Sat, Aug 14 2021 at 12:40:39 +0300, Andy Shevchenko 
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 7:33 AM Luke D. Jones <luke@ljones.dev> 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  Add initial support for platform_profile where the support is
>>>  based on availability of ASUS_THROTTLE_THERMAL_POLICY.
>>> 
>>>  Because throttle_thermal_policy is used by platform_profile and is
>>>  writeable separately to platform_profile any userspace changes to
>>>  throttle_thermal_policy need to notify platform_profile.
>>> 
>>>  In future throttle_thermal_policy sysfs should be removed so that
>>>  only one method controls the laptop power profile.
>> 
>> Some comments below.
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>>>  +       /*
>>>  +        * Ensure that platform_profile updates userspace with the 
>>> change to ensure
>>>  +        * that platform_profile and throttle_thermal_policy_mode 
>>> are in sync
>> 
>> Missed period here and in other multi-line comments.
>> 
>>>  +        */
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>>>  +       /* All possible toggles like throttle_thermal_policy here 
>>> */
>>>  +       if (asus->throttle_thermal_policy_available) {
>>>  +               tp = asus->throttle_thermal_policy_mode;
>>>  +       } else {
>>>  +               return -1;
>>>  +       }
>>>  +
>>>  +       if (tp < 0)
>>>  +               return tp;
>> 
>> This will be better in a form
>> 
>>     if (!..._available)
>>         return -ENODATA; // what -1 means?
>> 
> 
> I wasn't sure what the best return was here. On your suggestion I've 
> changed to ENODATA
> 
>>     tp = ...;
>>     if (tp < 0)
>>         return tp;
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>>>  +       /* All possible toggles like throttle_thermal_policy here 
>>> */
>>>  +       if (!asus->throttle_thermal_policy_available) {
>>>  +               return -1;
>> 
>> See above.
>> 
>>>  +       }
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>>>  +       if (asus->throttle_thermal_policy_available) {
>>>  +               pr_info("Using throttle_thermal_policy for 
>>> platform_profile support\n");
>> 
>> Why pr_*()?
> 
> That seemed to be the convention? I see there is also dev_info(), so 
> I've switched to that as it seems more appropriate.
> 
>> 
>>>  +       } else {
>>>  +               /*
>>>  +                * Not an error if a component platform_profile 
>>> relies on is unavailable
>>>  +                * so early return, skipping the setup of 
>>> platform_profile.
>>>  +               */
>>>  +               return 0;
>> 
>> Do it other way around,
>> 
>> /*
>>  * Comment
>>  */
>> if (!...)
>>   return 0;
> 
> Thanks, I think I was transliterating thought process to code as I 
> went along.
> All updated now.
> 
>> 
>>>  +       }
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> With Best Regards,
>> Andy Shevchenko
>