On 11/4/20 9:05 PM, Brad Campbell wrote: > On 5/11/20 3:43 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On 11/4/20 6:18 PM, Brad Campbell wrote: >>> On 5/11/20 12:20 am, Andreas Kemnade wrote: >>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 16:56:32 +1100 >>>> Brad Campbell <brad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>>> If anyone with a Mac having a conventional SMC and seeing issues on 5.9 could test this it'd be appreciated. I'm not saying this code is "correct", but it "works for me". >>>>> >>>> Seems to work here. >>>> dmesg | grep applesmc >>>> >>>> [ 1.350782] applesmc: key=561 fan=1 temp=33 index=33 acc=0 lux=2 kbd=1 >>>> [ 1.350922] applesmc applesmc.768: hwmon_device_register() is deprecated. Please convert the driver to use hwmon_device_register_with_info(). >>>> [ 17.748504] applesmc: wait_status looping 2: 0x4a, 0x4c, 0x4f >>>> [ 212.008952] applesmc: wait_status looping 2: 0x44, 0x40, 0x4e >>>> [ 213.033930] applesmc: wait_status looping 2: 0x44, 0x40, 0x4e >>>> [ 213.167908] applesmc: wait_status looping 2: 0x44, 0x40, 0x4e >>>> [ 219.087854] applesmc: wait_status looping 2: 0x44, 0x40, 0x4e >>>> >>>> Tested it on top of 5.9 >>> >>> Much appreciated Andreas. >>> >>> I'm not entirely sure where to go from here. I'd really like some wider testing before cleaning this up and submitting it. It puts extra checks & constraints on the comms with the SMC that weren't there previously. >>> >>> I guess given there doesn't appear to have been a major outcry that the driver broke in 5.9 might indicate that nobody is using it, or that it only broke on certain machines? >>> >>> Can we get some guidance from the hwmon maintainers on what direction they'd like to take? I don't really want to push this forward without broader testing only to find it breaks a whole heap of machines on the basis that it fixes mine. >>> >> >> Trick question ;-). >> >> I'd suggest to keep it simple. Your patch seems to be quite complicated >> and checks a lot of bits. Reducing that to a minimum would help limiting >> the risk that some of those bits are interpreted differently on other >> systems. >> >> Guenter >> >> > Appreciate the feedback. > > This would be the bare minimum based on the bits use in the original code. If the original code worked "well enough" then this should be relatively safe. > Can you clean that up and submit as patch ? Thanks, Guenter
