Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF6DEC433EF for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 19:42:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231945AbhLTTmU (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Dec 2021 14:42:20 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45518 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230519AbhLTTmR (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Dec 2021 14:42:17 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF66DC061574 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 11:42:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id m1so8550988pfk.8 for ; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 11:42:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=KoVlv4DwLSYaskk/NiROpawGSL9nBdwY2zIFrfhk2/c=; b=Mr0uD14e4FwfkZYuwJQ/bvgsHDaaBhksz+Ycp4dUFSKS+S7UiJVCKyFScEXxiE4Ikk 44X0xErqxeF2yAXh5hoYWe69MsZBvoA1qskBru68JWeeWNacylz79TcNbUZkA1SBP37G Kil6RMkbEvPs70TbLlnHgzXRNryDTjOXy9kxAUoRlxUAf6E3rslFWa2/IYt/ftGx/uMB NHGWuAIMX2BMqfGue2lIvekLyyfPcDO3HEMvqqE+WG+wXjZti28rYAggfz/26EEfJn8b rJNDSGtmRU2b4DjEopLZ//6hAy85TcG/hro7UCw+CxJRDcXfPp2WpF1RwMNxxlYeIbgD tNnw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=KoVlv4DwLSYaskk/NiROpawGSL9nBdwY2zIFrfhk2/c=; b=OqzxTJm8s1MyxqGUSAOFi3Khcvr9NkBONw+6cGS1hWNgs49xzGFT72ReEpHLu6OBmH ZHs7PgpxUW+kDkM1RVXPRStYl9kPMqaTYXUxOpreGLJ+zCst8VAGBW6JtdOB5QunlHea Y/cZ+eCY1gIgkBDO1IsTFFHk6ikzT9apkSOdiOv8gqdkfOg/yqGoaXctKnfS9MigqKcT ChhzHt/L3Bp16SQs+cnkQ2vCHiR4J1PQDf3J9FH70cSrC0RvBK5fwYDyFkDXDKfGAlpZ /Rhajw4dtwTcwgu06tz09NQQ0M9JmKnA5Per4Wr8pVDqqfr/Ow4ElkomthlEy3pNRGdz MNdA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532OjKHxtPbrhh1ZvV1qQ24qEr9EhMxsCHtofd2z0Y3bgFgIRvyS zw6+NWIg7zsKKcaC57XX0Oc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy4Hho/V/6Hec97yfxkmXMyfitPiO7PJcxVfn366LGFerPjUTAUdOJ62k38249oy1Sce12aZw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:6c81:: with SMTP id h123mr16472244pgc.313.1640029336229; Mon, 20 Dec 2021 11:42:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:202:201:9632:a1c4:968a:6f66]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id mw8sm175904pjb.42.2021.12.20.11.42.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 20 Dec 2021 11:42:14 -0800 (PST) From: Dmitry Torokhov X-Google-Original-From: Dmitry Torokhov Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 11:42:12 -0800 To: Rajat Jain Cc: Maarten Lankhorst , Maxime Ripard , Thomas Zimmermann , Hans de Goede , David Airlie , Daniel Vetter , Benson Leung , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, gwendal@google.com, seanpaul@google.com, marcheau@google.com, rajatxjain@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] platform/chrome: Add driver for ChromeOS privacy-screen Message-ID: References: <20211217202850.1967594-1-rajatja@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211217202850.1967594-1-rajatja@google.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Rajat, On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 12:28:49PM -0800, Rajat Jain wrote: > This adds the ACPI driver for the ChromeOS privacy screen that is > present on some chromeos devices. > > Note that ideally, we'd want this privacy screen driver to be probed > BEFORE the drm probe in order to avoid a drm probe deferral: > https://hansdegoede.livejournal.com/25948.html > > In practise, I found that ACPI drivers are bound to their devices AFTER > the drm probe on chromebooks. So on chromebooks with privacy-screen, > this patch along with the next one in this series results in a probe > deferral of about 250ms for i915 driver. However, it did not result in > any user noticeable delay of splash screen in my personal experience. > > In future if this probe deferral turns out to be an issue, we can > consider turning this ACPI driver into something that is probed > earlier than the drm drivers. > > Signed-off-by: Rajat Jain > --- > v2: * Reword the commit log > * Make the Kconfig into a tristate > * Reorder the patches in the series. > > drivers/platform/chrome/Kconfig | 9 ++ > drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/platform/chrome/chromeos_priv_scrn.c | 132 +++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 142 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 drivers/platform/chrome/chromeos_priv_scrn.c > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/Kconfig b/drivers/platform/chrome/Kconfig > index ccc23d8686e8..d1c209a45a62 100644 > --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/Kconfig > @@ -243,6 +243,15 @@ config CROS_USBPD_NOTIFY > To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the > module will be called cros_usbpd_notify. > > +config CHROMEOS_PRIVACY_SCREEN > + tristate "ChromeOS Privacy Screen support" > + depends on ACPI > + depends on DRM > + select DRM_PRIVACY_SCREEN > + help > + This driver provides the support needed for the in-built electronic > + privacy screen that is present on some ChromeOS devices. > + > source "drivers/platform/chrome/wilco_ec/Kconfig" > > endif # CHROMEOS_PLATFORMS > diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile b/drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile > index f901d2e43166..cfa0bb4e9e34 100644 > --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile > +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile > @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ > CFLAGS_cros_ec_trace.o:= -I$(src) > > obj-$(CONFIG_CHROMEOS_LAPTOP) += chromeos_laptop.o > +obj-$(CONFIG_CHROMEOS_PRIVACY_SCREEN) += chromeos_priv_scrn.o > obj-$(CONFIG_CHROMEOS_PSTORE) += chromeos_pstore.o > obj-$(CONFIG_CHROMEOS_TBMC) += chromeos_tbmc.o > obj-$(CONFIG_CROS_EC) += cros_ec.o > diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/chromeos_priv_scrn.c b/drivers/platform/chrome/chromeos_priv_scrn.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..a4cbf5c79c2a > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/chromeos_priv_scrn.c I think we can spare a few more characters :) chromeos_privacy_screen.c maybe? And also see if maybe variables in the code are not that unseemly long even if not abbreviated? > @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > + > +/* > + * chromeos_priv_scrn.c - ChromeOS Privacy Screen support I'd avoid mentioning file name as those tend to change. > + * > + * Copyright (C) 2022 The Chromium OS Authors This is not correct copyright for kernel contributions. It should be attributed to "Google LLC". Note that it is different from CrOS userspace. > + * > + */ > + > +#include > +#include > + > +/* > + * The DSM (Define Specific Method) constants below are the agreed API with > + * the firmware team, on how to control privacy screen using ACPI methods. > + */ > +#define PRIV_SCRN_DSM_REVID 1 /* DSM version */ > +#define PRIV_SCRN_DSM_FN_GET_STATUS 1 /* Get privacy screen status */ > +#define PRIV_SCRN_DSM_FN_ENABLE 2 /* Enable privacy screen */ > +#define PRIV_SCRN_DSM_FN_DISABLE 3 /* Disable privacy screen */ > + > +static const guid_t chromeos_priv_scrn_dsm_guid = > + GUID_INIT(0xc7033113, 0x8720, 0x4ceb, > + 0x90, 0x90, 0x9d, 0x52, 0xb3, 0xe5, 0x2d, 0x73); > + > +static void > +chromeos_priv_scrn_get_hw_state(struct drm_privacy_screen *drm_priv_scrn) > +{ > + union acpi_object *obj; > + acpi_handle handle; > + struct device *priv_scrn = drm_priv_scrn->dev.parent; This is really bad that we need to poke into internals of drm_privacy_screen to get to "our" device. I think there is only one consume of the privacy screen API at the moment, the thinkpad driver, so maybe it is not too late to change drm_privacy_screen_register() to either accept instance of struct drm_privacy_screen (which then could be embedded into something) or accept a void pointer to attach arbitrary data to it, and then add drm_privacy_screen_get_drvdata() to get to that pointer. > + > + if (!priv_scrn) > + return; This should not happen regardless. > + > + handle = acpi_device_handle(to_acpi_device(priv_scrn)); > + obj = acpi_evaluate_dsm(handle, &chromeos_priv_scrn_dsm_guid, > + PRIV_SCRN_DSM_REVID, > + PRIV_SCRN_DSM_FN_GET_STATUS, NULL); > + if (!obj) { > + dev_err(priv_scrn, "_DSM failed to get privacy-screen state\n"); Can we do something about it? A dedicated status? Also, can we print ACPI-specific error? > + return; > + } > + > + if (obj->type != ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER) > + dev_err(priv_scrn, "Bad _DSM to get privacy-screen state\n"); Same here. > + else if (obj->integer.value == 1) > + drm_priv_scrn->hw_state = drm_priv_scrn->sw_state = > + PRIVACY_SCREEN_ENABLED; > + else > + drm_priv_scrn->hw_state = drm_priv_scrn->sw_state = > + PRIVACY_SCREEN_DISABLED; > + > + ACPI_FREE(obj); > +} > + > +static int > +chromeos_priv_scrn_set_sw_state(struct drm_privacy_screen *drm_priv_scrn, > + enum drm_privacy_screen_status state) > +{ > + union acpi_object *obj = NULL; > + acpi_handle handle; > + struct device *priv_scrn = drm_priv_scrn->dev.parent; > + > + if (!priv_scrn) > + return -ENODEV; This should not happen regardless. > + > + handle = acpi_device_handle(to_acpi_device(priv_scrn)); > + > + if (state == PRIVACY_SCREEN_DISABLED) { > + obj = acpi_evaluate_dsm(handle, &chromeos_priv_scrn_dsm_guid, > + PRIV_SCRN_DSM_REVID, > + PRIV_SCRN_DSM_FN_DISABLE, NULL); > + } else if (state == PRIVACY_SCREEN_ENABLED) { > + obj = acpi_evaluate_dsm(handle, &chromeos_priv_scrn_dsm_guid, > + PRIV_SCRN_DSM_REVID, > + PRIV_SCRN_DSM_FN_ENABLE, NULL); > + } else { > + dev_err(priv_scrn, "Bad attempt to set privacy-screen status\n"); > + return -EINVAL; Print state to aid in tracking bugs? > + } > + > + if (!obj) { > + dev_err(priv_scrn, "_DSM failed to set privacy-screen state\n"); Can we print ACPI-specific error? > + return -EIO; > + } > + > + drm_priv_scrn->hw_state = drm_priv_scrn->sw_state = state; > + ACPI_FREE(obj); > + return 0; > +} > + > +static const struct drm_privacy_screen_ops chromeos_priv_scrn_ops = { > + .get_hw_state = chromeos_priv_scrn_get_hw_state, > + .set_sw_state = chromeos_priv_scrn_set_sw_state, > +}; > + > +static int chromeos_priv_scrn_add(struct acpi_device *adev) > +{ > + struct drm_privacy_screen *drm_priv_scrn = > + drm_privacy_screen_register(&adev->dev, &chromeos_priv_scrn_ops); > + > + if (IS_ERR(drm_priv_scrn)) { > + dev_err(&adev->dev, "Error registering privacy-screen\n"); > + return PTR_ERR(drm_priv_scrn); > + } > + > + dev_info(&adev->dev, "registered privacy-screen '%s'\n", > + dev_name(&drm_priv_scrn->dev)); I don't think we need be this noisy. > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static const struct acpi_device_id chromeos_priv_scrn_device_ids[] = { > + {"GOOG0010", 0}, /* Google's electronic privacy screen for eDP-1 */ > + {} > +}; > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, chromeos_priv_scrn_device_ids); > + > +static struct acpi_driver chromeos_priv_scrn_driver = { > + .name = "chromeos_priv_scrn_drvr", > + .class = "ChromeOS", > + .ids = chromeos_priv_scrn_device_ids, > + .ops = { > + .add = chromeos_priv_scrn_add, We don't need any cleanup? > + }, > +}; > + > +module_acpi_driver(chromeos_priv_scrn_driver); > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("ChromeOS ACPI Privacy Screen driver"); > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Rajat Jain "); > -- > 2.34.1.307.g9b7440fafd-goog > Thanks. -- Dmitry