[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8cd8d02f-f4b2-3ad3-a3e5-f9857d8519e2@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 15:44:17 -0500
From: "Limonciello, Mario" <mlimonci@....com>
To: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>,
Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
Cc: heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com, rafael@...nel.org,
ajayg@...dia.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
Evan.Quan@....com, Lijo.Lazar@....com, Sanket.Goswami@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] power: supply: Use the scope of power supplies to
tell if power is system supplied
On 5/16/2023 3:41 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 01:25:40PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>> The logic used for power_supply_is_system_supplied() counts all power
>> supplies and:
>> * If no power supplies found assumes AC
>> * If non-battery power supplies found uses online to determine AC/DC.
>> - If any are onlined, assumes AC
>> - Othewise DC.
>>
>> This logic makes sense for desktop systems that don't export an ACPI
>> battery, but it fails once you include a dGPU that provides a UCSI
>> power supply on a desktop system without any other power supplies.
>>
>> The dGPU by default doesn't have anything plugged in so it's 'offline'.
>> This makes power_supply_is_system_supplied() return 0 with a count of
>> 1 meaning all drivers that use this get a wrong judgement.
>>
>> To fix this case adjust the logic to also examine the scope of the
>> power supply. If the power supply is deemed a device power supply,
>> then don't count it.
>>
>> Cc: Evan Quan <Evan.Quan@....com>
>> Suggested-by: Lijo Lazar <Lijo.Lazar@....com>
>> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
>> ---
> Good find; the current logic should also break with a desktop PC
> once a POWER_SUPPLY_SCOPE_DEVICE battery device is attached (e.g.
> a HID device), because it increases the counter.
Yup!
> I suppose I can just apply this to my fixes branch since there is
> no compile time dependency to the second patch?
Yes, that's correct. I don't see a problem with the other patch going
through
another tree.
> -- Sebastian
>
>> drivers/power/supply/power_supply_core.c | 8 ++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/power_supply_core.c b/drivers/power/supply/power_supply_core.c
>> index ab986dbace16..d57f420ba8c3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/power/supply/power_supply_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/power_supply_core.c
>> @@ -348,6 +348,10 @@ static int __power_supply_is_system_supplied(struct device *dev, void *data)
>> struct power_supply *psy = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> unsigned int *count = data;
>>
>> + if (!psy->desc->get_property(psy, POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_SCOPE, &ret))
>> + if (ret.intval == POWER_SUPPLY_SCOPE_DEVICE)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> (*count)++;
>> if (psy->desc->type != POWER_SUPPLY_TYPE_BATTERY)
>> if (!psy->desc->get_property(psy, POWER_SUPPLY_PROP_ONLINE,
>> @@ -366,8 +370,8 @@ int power_supply_is_system_supplied(void)
>> __power_supply_is_system_supplied);
>>
>> /*
>> - * If no power class device was found at all, most probably we are
>> - * running on a desktop system, so assume we are on mains power.
>> + * If no system scope power class device was found at all, most probably we
>> + * are running on a desktop system, so assume we are on mains power.
>> */
>> if (count == 0)
>> return 1;
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists