[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9b652a48-4107-4b68-9aea-6cfdf1e0e4fa@amd.com>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 20:43:39 -0500
From: "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@....com>
To: Lyndon Sanche <lsanche@...deno.ca>
Cc: pali@...nel.org, W_Armin@....de, srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com,
ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com, lkp@...el.com, hdegoede@...hat.com,
Yijun.Shen@...l.com, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Randy Dunlap
<rdunlap@...radead.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dell.Client.Kernel@...l.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] platform/x86: dell-laptop: Implement
platform_profile
On 5/11/2024 7:12 PM, Lyndon Sanche wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, May 11 2024 at 09:59:17 AM -06:00:00, Lyndon Sanche
> <lsanche@...deno.ca> wrote:
>> On May 11, 2024 9:16:56 a.m. MDT, "Limonciello, Mario"
>> <mario.limonciello@....com <mailto:mario.limonciello@....com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/10/2024 9:36 PM, Lyndon Sanche wrote:
>>
>> index 6ae09d7f76fb..387fa5618f7a 100644 ---
>> a/drivers/platform/x86/dell/dell-smbios-base.c +++
>> b/drivers/platform/x86/dell/dell-smbios-base.c @@ -71,6 +71,7
>> @@ static struct smbios_call call_blacklist[] = { /* handled
>> by kernel: dell-laptop */ {0x0000, CLASS_INFO, SELECT_RFKILL},
>> {0x0000, CLASS_KBD_BACKLIGHT, SELECT_KBD_BACKLIGHT}, +
>> {0x0000, CLASS_INFO, SELECT_THERMAL_MANAGEMENT}, };
>>
>> So when Alex checked on v5 that this doesn't load on workstations,
>> it has made me realize that doing this will block the interface
>> totally even on workstations. So I think there are a few ways to
>> go to handle this: 1) Rename dell-laptop to dell-client or dell-pc
>> and let dell-laptop load on more form factors. This would require
>> some internal handling in the module for which features make sense
>> for different form factors. 2) Add a new module just for the
>> thermal handling and put all this code into it instead. I don't
>> have a strong opinion, but I do think one of them should be done
>> to ensure there aren't problems on workstations losing access to
>> thermal control.
>>
>> A dell-client/laptop separation makes more sense IMO. I don't think
>> keyboard control would belong in a the dell-client module either.
>> Separating just thermal control would be easier, but not as clean I
>> think. Thanks, Lyndon
>
> Thinking about it more, we can leave dell-laptop as-is and create a
> common dell-pc module that does not check for specific form-factors,
> assuming that is possible. Thermal management can be the first function
> to go in there.
>
> We will still block the calls from userspace regardless of which modules
> are loaded. If dell-pc fails because thermal management is not
> supported, we aren't losing anything by blocking that call anyway.
>
> Thoughts?
Sounds good by me. So basically laptops will load both dell-pc and
dell-laptop and workstations would load dell-pc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists