Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] asus-wmi: Add support for platform_profile

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



A very quick question: should I be enabling platform_profile by default if asus_wmi is enabled in kconfig?

On Sat, Aug 14 2021 at 23:46:06 +1200, Luke Jones <luke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Andy, thanks for the feedback. All is addressed, and some inline comment/reply. New version incoming pending pr_info() vs dev_info()

On Sat, Aug 14 2021 at 12:40:39 +0300, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 7:33 AM Luke D. Jones <luke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 Add initial support for platform_profile where the support is
 based on availability of ASUS_THROTTLE_THERMAL_POLICY.

 Because throttle_thermal_policy is used by platform_profile and is
 writeable separately to platform_profile any userspace changes to
 throttle_thermal_policy need to notify platform_profile.

 In future throttle_thermal_policy sysfs should be removed so that
 only one method controls the laptop power profile.

Some comments below.

...

 +       /*
+ * Ensure that platform_profile updates userspace with the change to ensure + * that platform_profile and throttle_thermal_policy_mode are in sync

Missed period here and in other multi-line comments.

 +        */

...

+ /* All possible toggles like throttle_thermal_policy here */
 +       if (asus->throttle_thermal_policy_available) {
 +               tp = asus->throttle_thermal_policy_mode;
 +       } else {
 +               return -1;
 +       }
 +
 +       if (tp < 0)
 +               return tp;

This will be better in a form

    if (!..._available)
        return -ENODATA; // what -1 means?


I wasn't sure what the best return was here. On your suggestion I've changed to ENODATA

    tp = ...;
    if (tp < 0)
        return tp;

...

+ /* All possible toggles like throttle_thermal_policy here */
 +       if (!asus->throttle_thermal_policy_available) {
 +               return -1;

See above.

 +       }

...

 +       if (asus->throttle_thermal_policy_available) {
+ pr_info("Using throttle_thermal_policy for platform_profile support\n");

Why pr_*()?

That seemed to be the convention? I see there is also dev_info(), so I've switched to that as it seems more appropriate.


 +       } else {
 +               /*
+ * Not an error if a component platform_profile relies on is unavailable + * so early return, skipping the setup of platform_profile.
 +               */
 +               return 0;

Do it other way around,

/*
 * Comment
 */
if (!...)
  return 0;

Thanks, I think I was transliterating thought process to code as I went along.
All updated now.


 +       }


--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko






[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux