[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 4/4] platform/x86: topstar-laptop: add optional WLAN LED workaround
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Guillaume Douézan-Grard
<> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 02:50:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Guillaume Douézan-Grard
>> <> wrote:
>> > Topstar U931 laptops provide an LED synced with the WLAN adapter
>> > hard-blocking state. Unfortunately, some models seem to be defective,
>> > making impossible to hard-block the adapter with the WLAN switch and
>> > thus the LED is useless.
>> >
>> > An ACPI method is available to programmatically control this switch and
>> > it indirectly allows to control the LED.
>> >
>> > This commit registers the LED within the corresponding subsystem, making
>> > possible for instance to use an rfkill-based trigger to synchronize the
>> > LED with the soft-blocking state.
>> >
>> > This feature is disabled by default and can be enabled with the
>> > `led_workaround` module parameter.
>> > #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> > #include <linux/input.h>
>> > #include <linux/input/sparse-keymap.h>
>> > +#include <linux/leds.h>
>> Yep, exact place, esp. after moving platform_device to the right place.
>> > +static bool led_workaround;
>> > +module_param_named(led_workaround, led_workaround, bool, 0444);
>> > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(led_workaround,
>> > + "Enables software-based WLAN LED control on systems with defective hardware switch");
>> So, this is most problematic piece in the series.
>> We are not encouraging module parameters. Why do we need one? Can't be
>> detected automatically (perhaps based on DMI strings)?
> Darren told me that.

> I tried to answer this question in the cover letter:

Perhaps it makes sense to put this explanation in the commit message.

> "These are barebone laptops, sold under quite a lot of brands and
> configurations, with different firmwares and so on. I can only say for sure
> that this issue is present for all the models sold under a specific brand,
> that's why I'm reluctant to enable this by default with a DMI check."
> In my case for instance, the DMI info has not been filled in by the retailler
> since I only have the ODM base board information to identify a model.

I see. I would like to have a consensus on this one with Darren, the
rest (after addressing comments) looks good to me.

> For now, I will prepare a new version containing the other needed changes you
> pointed at for the other patches.


With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-05 14:29    [W:0.062 / U:0.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site