Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-174123-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 12:25:01 +0800
From: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>
To: Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>
Cc: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>, Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
	chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Dustin Howett <dustin@howett.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/chrome: cros_kbd_led_backlight: enable probing
 through EC_FEATURE_PWM_KEYB
Message-ID: <ZjxQHV9FPovvm_CY@google.com>
References: <20240505-cros_ec-kbd-led-framework-v1-1-bfcca69013d2@weissschuh.net>
 <cd9c5b6a-0155-434a-b868-a9ea52e878c9@amd.com>
 <ae29f036-5e39-47ee-98d3-c023a263a3ef@t-8ch.de>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ae29f036-5e39-47ee-98d3-c023a263a3ef@t-8ch.de>

On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 07:38:09PM +0200, Thomas Wei?schuh wrote:
> On 2024-05-05 08:42:21+0000, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > On 5/5/2024 04:41, Thomas Wei?schuh wrote:
> > > The ChromeOS EC used in Framework laptops supports the standard cros
> > > keyboard backlight protocol.
> > > However the firmware on these laptops don't implement the ACPI ID
> > > GOOG0002 that is recognized by cros_kbd_led_backlight and they also
> > > don't use device tree.

If implementing ACPI ID GOOG0002 is not an option, how about adding a new ACPI
ID?  For the new ACPI ID, it can use EC PWM for setting the brightness.

> > Something I'd wonder is if the GOOG0002 ACPI ID can go away entirely with
> > this type of change.  Presumably the Chromebooks with ChromeOS EC /also/
> > advertise EC_FEATURE_PWM_KEYB.
> 
> Sounds good to me in general. It would make the code cleaner.
> 
> But I have no idea how CrOS kernels are set up in general.
> If they are not using CONFIG_MFD_CROS_EC_DEV for some reason that
> wouldn't work.
> 
> If the CrOS folks agree with that aproach I'll be happy to implement it.

I would say NO as some existing devices (with legacy firmware and kernel) may
rely on it.