[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <989e7297-97f9-4d55-be28-78128572fed2@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 09:58:01 +0100
From: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>
To: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>, Lee Chun-Yi <jlee@...e.com>,
Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>,
Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>, "Luke D . Jones"
<luke@...nes.dev>, Ike Panhc <ike.pan@...onical.com>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Alexis Belmonte <alexbelm48@...il.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Ai Chao <aichao@...inos.cn>, Gergo Koteles <soyer@....hu>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:ACPI" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:MICROSOFT SURFACE PLATFORM PROFILE DRIVER"
<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:THINKPAD ACPI EXTRAS DRIVER"
<ibm-acpi-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>,
Matthew Schwartz <matthew.schwartz@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 17/20] ACPI: platform_profile: Check all profile
handler to calculate next
Am 07.11.24 um 07:02 schrieb Mario Limonciello:
> As multiple platform profile handlers might not all support the same
> profile, cycling to the next profile could have a different result
> depending on what handler are registered.
>
> Check what is active and supported by all handlers to decide what
> to do.
>
> Tested-by: Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>
> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
> ---
> v5:
> * Adjust mutex use
> ---
> drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c b/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
> index 7f302ac4d3779..2c466f2d16b42 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
> @@ -411,34 +411,39 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(platform_profile_notify);
>
> int platform_profile_cycle(void)
> {
> + enum platform_profile_option next = PLATFORM_PROFILE_LAST;
> enum platform_profile_option profile;
> - enum platform_profile_option next;
> + unsigned long choices;
> int err;
>
> if (!class_is_registered(&platform_profile_class))
> return -ENODEV;
>
> scoped_cond_guard(mutex_intr, return -ERESTARTSYS, &profile_lock) {
> - if (!cur_profile)
> - return -ENODEV;
> + err = class_for_each_device(&platform_profile_class, NULL,
> + &profile, _aggregate_profiles);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
>
> - err = cur_profile->profile_get(cur_profile, &profile);
> + err = class_for_each_device(&platform_profile_class, NULL,
> + &choices, _aggregate_choices);
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> - next = find_next_bit_wrap(cur_profile->choices, PLATFORM_PROFILE_LAST,
> + next = find_next_bit_wrap(&choices,
> + PLATFORM_PROFILE_LAST,
> profile + 1);
Could it be that this would lead to be "custom" profile being selected under some conditions?
Also _aggregate_profiles() expects profile to be initialized with PLATFORM_PROFILE_LAST.
Thanks,
Armin Wolf
>
> - if (WARN_ON(next == PLATFORM_PROFILE_LAST))
> - return -EINVAL;
> + err = class_for_each_device(&platform_profile_class, NULL, &next,
> + _store_class_profile);
>
> - err = cur_profile->profile_set(cur_profile, next);
> if (err)
> return err;
> }
>
> sysfs_notify(acpi_kobj, NULL, "platform_profile");
> - return 0;
> +
> + return err;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(platform_profile_cycle);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists