lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/7] platform/chrome: cros_ec_lightbar: instantiate only if the EC has a lightbar.
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:33:56PM +0100, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> Due to the way attribute groups visibility work, the function
> cros_ec_lightbar_attrs_are_visible is called multiple times, once per
> attribute, and each of these calls makes an EC transaction. For what is
> worth the EC log reports multiple errors on boot when the lightbar is
> not available. Instead, check if the EC has a lightbar in the probe
> function and only instantiate the device.
>
> Ideally we should have instantiate the driver only if the
> EC_FEATURE_LIGHTBAR is defined, but that's not possible because that flag
> is not in the very first Pixel Chromebook (Link), only on Samus. So, the
> driver is instantiated by his parent always.
>
> This patch changes a bit the actual behaviour. Before the patch if an EC
> doesn't have a lightbar an empty lightbar folder is created in
> /sys/class/chromeos/<ec device>, after the patch the empty folder is not
> created, so, the folder is only created if the lightbar exists.
>
> Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>

Guess this is the answer to the suggestion I had before. Maybe the two patches
should be merged together ? Or do others think that they should be kept
separate ?

Additional comment below.

Thanks,
Guenter

> ---
>
> drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_lightbar.c | 29 +++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_lightbar.c b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_lightbar.c
> index 31d22f594fac..d255264eb082 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_lightbar.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_lightbar.c
> @@ -567,37 +567,28 @@ static struct attribute *__lb_cmds_attrs[] = {
> NULL,
> };
>
> -static bool ec_has_lightbar(struct cros_ec_dev *ec)
> +static bool cros_ec_has_lightbar(struct cros_ec_dev *ec_dev)
> {
> - return !!get_lightbar_version(ec, NULL, NULL);
> -}
> -
> -static umode_t cros_ec_lightbar_attrs_are_visible(struct kobject *kobj,
> - struct attribute *a, int n)
> -{
> - struct device *dev = container_of(kobj, struct device, kobj);
> - struct cros_ec_dev *ec = to_cros_ec_dev(dev);
> - struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(ec->dev);
> + struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(ec_dev->dev);
> struct cros_ec_platform *pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> int is_cros_ec;
>
> is_cros_ec = strcmp(pdata->ec_name, CROS_EC_DEV_NAME);
>
Can this now ever be false ?

> if (is_cros_ec != 0)
> - return 0;
> + return false;
>
> - /* Only instantiate this stuff if the EC has a lightbar */
> - if (ec_has_lightbar(ec)) {
> - ec_with_lightbar = ec;
> - return a->mode;
> + if (!!get_lightbar_version(ec_dev, NULL, NULL)) {
> + ec_with_lightbar = ec_dev;

Is this variable (and the associated check in lb_manual_suspend_ctrl)
still necessary ?

> + return true;
> }
> - return 0;
> +
> + return false;
> }
>
> struct attribute_group cros_ec_lightbar_attr_group = {
> .name = "lightbar",
> .attrs = __lb_cmds_attrs,
> - .is_visible = cros_ec_lightbar_attrs_are_visible,
> };
>
> static int cros_ec_lightbar_probe(struct platform_device *pd)
> @@ -611,6 +602,10 @@ static int cros_ec_lightbar_probe(struct platform_device *pd)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> + /* Only instantiate this stuff if the EC has a lightbar */
> + if (!cros_ec_has_lightbar(ec_dev))
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> /* Take control of the lightbar from the EC. */
> lb_manual_suspend_ctrl(ec_dev, 1);
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-22 20:26    [W:0.105 / U:0.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site