On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:54 PM Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 05:42:45PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:23 PM Sakari Ailus > > <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Bartosz, Rafael, > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 04:49:37PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 5:54 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 5:44 PM Bartosz Golaszewski > > > > > <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 2:25 PM Sakari Ailus > > > > > > <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In certain use cases (where the chip is part of a camera module, and the > > > > > > > camera module is wired together with a camera privacy LED), powering on > > > > > > > the device during probe is undesirable. Add support for the at24 to > > > > > > > execute probe while being powered off. For this to happen, a hint in form > > > > > > > of a device property is required from the firmware. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll ack this but I still claim that the name > > > > > > acpi_dev_state_low_power() is super misleading for this use-case and > > > > > > I've been saying that for 10 versions now with everyone just ignoring > > > > > > my remarks. :/ > > > > > > > > > > Well, the function in question simply checks if the current ACPI power > > > > > state of the device is different from "full power", so its name > > > > > appears to be quite adequate to me. > > > > > > > > > > If the way in which it is used is confusing, though, I guess > > > > > explaining what's going on would be welcome. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I have explained it multiple time already - last time at v9 of this series: > > > > > > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg3816807.html > > > > > > How about adding this to the description of acpi_dev_state_low_power(): > > > > > > -----------8<-------------- > > > * This function is intended to be used by drivers to tell whether the device > > > * is in low power state (D1--D3cold) in driver's probe or remove function. See > > > * Documentation/firmware-guide/acpi/low-power-probe.rst for more information. > > > -----------8<-------------- > > > > This information is already there in the kerneldoc description of that > > function AFAICS. > > Ok, the D states are mentioned already. But how to use it is not, nor > there's a reference to the ReST file. I think that wouldn't hurt. > > > > > I was thinking about adding an explanation comment to the caller. > > I think it'd be best if the function name would convey that without a > comment that should then be added to all callers. How about calling the > function e.g. acpi_dev_state_d0() and negating the return value? The D0 > state is well defined and we could do this without adding new terms. That would work for me.
