On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Guillaume Douézan-Grard <gdouezangrard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 02:50:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Guillaume Douézan-Grard >> <gdouezangrard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Topstar U931 laptops provide an LED synced with the WLAN adapter >> > hard-blocking state. Unfortunately, some models seem to be defective, >> > making impossible to hard-block the adapter with the WLAN switch and >> > thus the LED is useless. >> > >> > An ACPI method is available to programmatically control this switch and >> > it indirectly allows to control the LED. >> > >> > This commit registers the LED within the corresponding subsystem, making >> > possible for instance to use an rfkill-based trigger to synchronize the >> > LED with the soft-blocking state. >> > >> > This feature is disabled by default and can be enabled with the >> > `led_workaround` module parameter. >> >> > #include <linux/platform_device.h> >> > #include <linux/input.h> >> > #include <linux/input/sparse-keymap.h> >> > +#include <linux/leds.h> >> >> Yep, exact place, esp. after moving platform_device to the right place. >> >> > +static bool led_workaround; >> > +module_param_named(led_workaround, led_workaround, bool, 0444); >> > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(led_workaround, >> > + "Enables software-based WLAN LED control on systems with defective hardware switch"); >> >> So, this is most problematic piece in the series. >> >> We are not encouraging module parameters. Why do we need one? Can't be >> detected automatically (perhaps based on DMI strings)? > > Darren told me that. > I tried to answer this question in the cover letter: Perhaps it makes sense to put this explanation in the commit message. > "These are barebone laptops, sold under quite a lot of brands and > configurations, with different firmwares and so on. I can only say for sure > that this issue is present for all the models sold under a specific brand, > that's why I'm reluctant to enable this by default with a DMI check." > > In my case for instance, the DMI info has not been filled in by the retailler > since I only have the ODM base board information to identify a model. I see. I would like to have a consensus on this one with Darren, the rest (after addressing comments) looks good to me. > For now, I will prepare a new version containing the other needed changes you > pointed at for the other patches. OK. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
