lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] platform/x86: Add Driver to set up lid GPEs on MS Surface device
2020. szeptember 16., szerda 3:22 keltezéssel, Maximilian Luz írta:
> [...]
> >> +static int surface_lid_enable_wakeup(struct device *dev, bool enable)
> >> +{
> >> + const struct surface_lid_device *lid = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >> + int action = enable ? ACPI_GPE_ENABLE : ACPI_GPE_DISABLE;
> >> + acpi_status status;
> >> +
> >> + status = acpi_set_gpe_wake_mask(NULL, lid->gpe_number, action);
> >> + if (status) {
> >
> > I think 'if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))' would be better.
>
> Okay, I'll change that (here and below).
>
> >> + dev_err(dev, "failed to set GPE wake mask: %d\n", status);
> >
> > I'm not sure if it's technically safe to print acpi_status with the %d format
> > specifier since 'acpi_status' is defined as 'u32' at the moment.
> > func("%lu", (unsigned long) status)
> > would be safer. You could also use 'acpi_format_exception()', which is possibly
> > the most correct approach since it assumes nothing about what 'acpi_status'
> > actually is.
>
> I wasn't aware of acpi_format_exception(). That looks like a good thing
> to do here, thanks!
>
> >
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >
> > I'm not sure if -EINVAL is the best error to return here.
>
> I'd argue that if this fails, it's most likely due to the GPE number
> being invalid (which I'd argue is an input), although I'm open for
> suggestions. Same reasoning for the -EINVALs below.
>

I see, I guess that makes sense, I didn't think of looking at it this way.


> >
> >> + }s
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> [...]
> >> +static int surface_gpe_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> +{
> >> + struct surface_lid_device *lid;
> >> + u32 gpe_number;
> >> + int status;
> >> +
> >> + status = device_property_read_u32(&pdev->dev, "gpe", &gpe_number);
> >> + if (status)
> >> + return -ENODEV;
> >
> > 'device_property_read_u32()' returns an error code, you could simply return that
> > instead of hiding it.
>
> My thought there was that if the "gpe" property isn't present or of a
> different type, this is not a device that we want to/can handle. Thus
> the -ENODEV. Although I think a debug print statement may be useful
> here.
>

I see, I just wanted to bring to your attention that 'device_property_read_u32()'
returns various standard error codes and you could simply return those.


> [...]
> >> +
> >> + lid->gpe_number = gpe_number;
> >> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, lid);
> >> +
> >> + status = surface_lid_enable_wakeup(&pdev->dev, false);
> >> + if (status) {
> >> + acpi_disable_gpe(NULL, gpe_number);
> >> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
> >
> > Why is 'platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL)' needed?
>
> Is this not required for clean-up once the driver data has been set? Or
> does the driver-base take care of that for us when the driver is
> removed/fails to probe? My reasoning was that I don't want to leave
> stuff around for any other driver to trip on (and rather have that
> driver oops on a NULL-pointer). If the driver-core already takes care of
> NULL-ing that, that line is not needed. Unfortunately that behavior
> doesn't seem to be explained in the documentation.
>

I'm not aware that it would be required. As a matter of fact, only two x86
platform drivers (intel_pmc_core, ideapad-laptop) do any cleanup of driver data.
There are much more hits (536) for "set_drvdata(.* NULL" when scanning all drivers.
There are 4864 hits for "set_drvdata(.*" that have no 'NULL' in them.

There is drivers/base/dd.c:really_probe(), which seems to be the place where driver
probes are actually called. And it calls 'dev_set_drvdata(dev, NULL)' if the probe
fails. And it also sets the driver data to NULL in '__device_release_driver()',
so I'm pretty sure the driver core takes care of it.


> >> + return status;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> [...]
> >> +static int __init surface_gpe_init(void)
> >> +{
> >> + const struct dmi_system_id *match;
> >> + const struct property_entry *props;
> >> + struct platform_device *pdev;
> >> + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
> >> + int status;
> >> +
> >> + match = dmi_first_match(dmi_lid_device_table);
> >> + if (!match) {
> >> + pr_info(KBUILD_MODNAME": no device detected, exiting\n");
> >
> > If you put
> > #define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
> > before including any headers, you can simply write 'pr_info("no device...")' and it'll
> > be prefixed by the module name. This is the "usual" way of achieving what you want.
>
> Right, thanks!
>
> >> + return 0;
> >
> > Shouldn't it return -ENODEV?
>
> How does module auto-loading behave with a -ENODEV return value in init?
> I know that in the driver's probe callback it signals that the driver
> isn't intended for the device. Is this the same for modules or would a
> user get an error message in the kernel log? As I couldn't find any
> documentation on this, I assumed it didn't behave the same and would
> emit an error message.
>
> The reason I don't want to emit an error message here is that the module
> can be loaded for devices that it's not intended (and that's not
> something we can fix with a better MODULE_ALIAS as Microsoft cleverly
> named their 5th generation Surface Pro "Surface Pro", without any
> version number). Mainly, I don't want users to get a random error
> message that doesn't indicate an actual error.
>

I wasn't sure, so I tested it. It prints the "no device" message, but that's it,
no more indication of the -ENODEV error in the kernel log during automatic
module loading at boot.

You could print "no compatible Microsoft Surface device found, exitig" (or something
similar). I think this provides enough information for any user to decide if
they should be concerned or not.


> >> + }
> [...]


Regards,
Barnabás Pőcze

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-16 22:27    [W:0.079 / U:2.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site