On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:26:04PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > On 2/25/20 11:54 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:27:52AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: ... > > In general I'm fine with this, but looking to the history of your changes I'm > > afraid that in future it will require more than one pin to be listed or > > something like this. > > The only models which need this so far are the weird HP X2 models which > use an external embedded controller with the tablet version of BYT / CHT > which is just al sorts of hacked together. Also see: > > https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20200223153208.312005-1-hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > > For other parts of the same device which also rather "hacked together" > HP made these models really really interesting... > > With that said I cannot guarantee that we won't need something similar > for some other botched-up device. ... > > > +static int ignore_wake = IGNORE_WAKE_AUTO; > > > +module_param(ignore_wake, int, 0444); > > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(ignore_wake, > > > + "Ignore ACPI wake flag: x=ignore-for-pin-x, -1=auto, -2=all, -3=none"); > > > > Perhaps we may take list of pins or a bitmap (see bitmap list parsers API). > > I guess you mean bitmap_parse_user / bitmap_print_to_pagebuf, the problem > is that for a more generic solution we need a wat to specify the > GPIO controller + the pin, so we would get a list of <name>,<pin> pairs > and then need to parse that, e.g. : > > gpiolib_acpi.ignore_wake=INT33FC:00,0x1c;INT33FC:01;0x12 > > I agree that if we really want to future proof this that then this is > the way we should go. This does mean adding a bunch of extra code for > parsing this, but I guess that would be better then my current hack. > > Please let me know if you prefer going this route then I will respin > the patches to work this way. Let's do it as a list of pairs, but in slightly different format (I see some potential to derive a generic parser, based on users described in Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt), i.e. ignore_wake=pin:controller[,pin:controller[,...]] ... > > > -MODULE_PARM_DESC(honor_wakeup, > > > - "Honor the ACPI wake-capable flag: 0=no, 1=yes, -1=auto"); > > Isn't it now a part of ABI? I don't think we may remove it, though we may ignore it. > > Or do something else. > > > > (One of the reasons why I hate module parameters) > > I personally do not subscribe to the module parameters are part of the kernel ABI > crowd. I do not think Linus has ever stated something like that ? For long existing > often used module parameters treating them as such makes a ton of sense, but this > one is quite new and AFAIK almost nobody is using it. So my vote would be to just > drop it. If we get push back we can easily restore it in some form. I'm fine with dropping it, perhaps add a phrase to the commit message about (safe) removal. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
