| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <fabf391c-933c-4a7b-a23c-d361ad3d7cc0@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:02:09 +0100
From: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>
To: Szilard Fabian <szfabian@...emarch.art>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, jwoithe@...t42.net,
hdegoede@...hat.com, ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop: Add battery charge
control support
Am 29.01.24 um 19:00 schrieb Szilard Fabian:
> This patch adds battery charge control support on Fujitsu notebooks
> via the S006 method of the FUJ02E3 ACPI device. With this method it's
> possible to set charge_control_end_threshold between 50 and 100%.
>
> Tested on Lifebook E5411 and Lifebook U728. Sadly I can't test this
> patch on a dual battery one, but I didn't find any clue about
> independent battery charge control on dual battery Fujitsu notebooks
> either. And by that I mean checking the DSDT table of various Lifebook
> notebooks and reverse engineering FUJ02E3.dll.
>
> Signed-off-by: Szilard Fabian <szfabian@...emarch.art>
> ---
> v2:
> Forgot to sign-off the original commit. Fixed, sorry for the
> inconvenience.
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c | 95 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> index 085e044e888e..bf3df74e4d63 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@
> #include <linux/kfifo.h>
> #include <linux/leds.h>
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/power_supply.h>
> +#include <acpi/battery.h>
> #include <acpi/video.h>
>
> #define FUJITSU_DRIVER_VERSION "0.6.0"
> @@ -97,6 +99,10 @@
> #define BACKLIGHT_OFF (BIT(0) | BIT(1))
> #define BACKLIGHT_ON 0
>
> +/* FUNC interface - battery control interface */
> +#define FUNC_S006_METHOD 0x1006
> +#define CHARGE_CONTROL_RW 0x21
> +
> /* Scancodes read from the GIRB register */
> #define KEY1_CODE 0x410
> #define KEY2_CODE 0x411
> @@ -164,6 +170,91 @@ static int call_fext_func(struct acpi_device *device,
> return value;
> }
>
> +/* Battery charge control code */
> +
> +static ssize_t charge_control_end_threshold_store(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_attribute *attr,
> + const char *buf, size_t count)
> +{
> + int value, ret;
> +
> + ret = kstrtouint(buf, 10, &value);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + if (value < 50 || value > 100)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + int cc_end_value, s006_cc_return;
> +
> + cc_end_value = value * 0x100 + 0x20;
> + s006_cc_return = call_fext_func(fext, FUNC_S006_METHOD,
> + CHARGE_CONTROL_RW, cc_end_value, 0x0);
Hi,
Error handling is missing for call_fext_func(), as it can return an negative error code.
> +
> + /*
> + * The S006 0x21 method returns 0x00 in case the provided value
> + * is invalid.
> + */
> + if (s006_cc_return == 0x00)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + return count;
> +}
> +
> +static ssize_t charge_control_end_threshold_show(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_attribute *attr,
> + char *buf)
> +{
> + int status;
> + status = call_fext_func(fext, FUNC_S006_METHOD,
> + CHARGE_CONTROL_RW, 0x21, 0x0);
Same as above.
> +
> + return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", status);
> +}
> +
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(charge_control_end_threshold);
> +
> +/* ACPI battery hook */
> +
> +static int fujitsu_battery_add(struct power_supply *battery,
> + struct acpi_battery_hook *hook)
> +{
> + /* Check if there is an existing FUJ02E3 ACPI device. */
> + if (fext == NULL)
> + return -ENODEV;
Can you put the struct acpi_battery_hook into the struct fujitsu_laptop
and then use container_of() to retrieve the ACPI device from there?
The dell-wmi-ddv driver does something similar.
This would guarantee that the battery hook always accesses the correct ACPI device
and you could drop this check.
> +
> + /*
> + * Check if the S006 0x21 method exists by trying to get the current
> + * battery charge limit.
> + */
> + int s006_cc_return;
> + s006_cc_return = call_fext_func(fext, FUNC_S006_METHOD,
> + CHARGE_CONTROL_RW, 0x21, 0x0);
> + if (s006_cc_return == UNSUPPORTED_CMD)
> + return -ENODEV;
Maybe this check should be done once during probe?
> +
> + if (device_create_file(&battery->dev,
> + &dev_attr_charge_control_end_threshold))
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + return 0;
Better to just return the result of device_create_file() here.
Thanks,
Armin Wolf
> +}
> +
> +static int fujitsu_battery_remove(struct power_supply *battery,
> + struct acpi_battery_hook *hook)
> +{
> + device_remove_file(&battery->dev,
> + &dev_attr_charge_control_end_threshold);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct acpi_battery_hook battery_hook = {
> + .add_battery = fujitsu_battery_add,
> + .remove_battery = fujitsu_battery_remove,
> + .name = "Fujitsu Battery Extension",
> +};
> +
> /* Hardware access for LCD brightness control */
>
> static int set_lcd_level(struct acpi_device *device, int level)
> @@ -839,6 +930,8 @@ static int acpi_fujitsu_laptop_add(struct acpi_device *device)
> if (ret)
> goto err_free_fifo;
>
> + battery_hook_register(&battery_hook);
> +
> return 0;
>
> err_free_fifo:
> @@ -851,6 +944,8 @@ static void acpi_fujitsu_laptop_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
> {
> struct fujitsu_laptop *priv = acpi_driver_data(device);
>
> + battery_hook_unregister(&battery_hook);
> +
> fujitsu_laptop_platform_remove(device);
>
> kfifo_free(&priv->fifo);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists