Hi, On 4/11/22 15:37, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 3:26 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 4/7/22 14:35, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: >>> From: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> The x86 Chromebooks have ChromeOS ACPI device. This driver attaches to >>> the ChromeOS ACPI device and exports the values reported by ACPI in a >>> sysfs directory. This data isn't present in ACPI tables when read >>> through ACPI tools, hence a driver is needed to do it. The driver gets >>> data from firmware using ACPI component of the kernel. The ACPI values >>> are presented in string form (numbers as decimal values) or binary >>> blobs, and can be accessed as the contents of the appropriate read only >>> files in the standard ACPI device's sysfs directory tree. This data is >>> consumed by the ChromeOS user space. >>> >>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> Thanks overall this looks pretty good to me. The only remark which >> I have is that I would like to see the Kconfig symbol changed >> from CONFIG_ACPI_CHROMEOS to CONFIG_CHROMEOS_ACPI to match the >> filename. >> >> CONFIG_ACPI_CHROMEOS to me suggests that this is an ACPI subsystem >> Kconfig option which, with the driver living under >> drivers/platform/x86 it is not. >> >> There is no need to send a new version for this, if you agree >> with the change let me know and I can change this while merging >> the driver. >> >> Rafael, before I merge this do you have any (more) remarks >> about this driver? > > I'm not sure why it has to be an acpi_driver. > > I think that the generic enumeration code creates a platform device > for this ACPI device object, so why can't it bind to that platform > device? > > Generally speaking, IMV we should avoid adding drivers binding > directly to ACPI device objects, because that is confusing (it is kind > of like binding directly to an of_node) and it should be entirely > avoidable. Ah I missed that, good point. Muhammad can you give turning this into a platform driver a try please? Note this will change all the sysfs attribute paths from: /sys/bus/acpi/devices/GGL0001:00/... to: /sys/bus/platform/devices/GGL0001:00/... and the ABI documentation should be updated accordingly. Regards, Hans
