Hi, On 10/17/22 17:20, Jorge Lopez wrote: > Hi Hans, > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 9:37 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 10/17/22 16:29, Limonciello, Mario wrote: >>> FYI When you submit v3, you don't need to add "new patches on top" for your feedbacks to the new driver, they can roll into the patch introducing hp-cfg. Just make sure you include a changelog under your cut line to indicate you changed these from vX->vY >>> >>> I suspect that Hans will also want you to split the driver up into smaller bite-size patches to make his review easier as well, but I'll let him advise how he wants it done. >>> >>> On 10/17/2022 09:11, Jorge Lopez wrote: >>>> ''Hi Mario, >>>> >>>> Please see comments to previous source comments. >>> <snip> >>> >>>>>> Thanks. If you make this change for v2, I can make the matching change >>>>>> in fwupd so that if it notices current_value permissions like this that >>>>>> it shows read only there too. >>>>> >>>>> Submitted the recommended changes for review in v2 >>>>> >>> >>> Thanks, looks good. >>> >>>>> Submitted a patch to improve the friendly display name for >>>>> few numbers of attributes associated with ‘Schedule Power-ON.’ BIOS >>>>> assign names such ‘Tuesday’ to an attribute. The name is correct, but >>>>> it is not descriptive enough for the user. Under those >>>>> conditions a portion of the path data value is appended to the attribute >>>>> name to create a user-friendly display name. >>>>> >>>>> For instance, the attribute name is ‘Tuesday,’ and the display name >>>>> value is ‘Schedule Power-ON – Tuesday’ >>> >>> Looks good >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Presumably if this is going into it's own directory you should move all >>>>>>>> platform-x86 HP drivers to this directory earlier in the series too. >>>> >>>> The other drivers named HP-WMI and HP_ACCEL were written by third >>>> party members and not by HP. It is for this reason and because of >>>> the number of files, only hp-bioscfg was placed in a separate >>>> directory. Let me know If my reasoning is not valid enough and I >>>> will keep the files in a separate directory and move the selection to >>>> the main list. In addition, Moving HP-WMI and HP_ACCEL drivers >>>> from x86 directories fall outside of the scope of these changes, >>>> Correct? >>>> >>> >>> There is no distinction who writes a driver. I think either you keep this driver in the root of drivers/platform/x86 or you put all the HP drivers in drivers/platform/x86/hp. >>> >>> I think if you're going to put this driver in the sub-directory "hp", then the first patch in this series should be to move those drivers to that sub-directory. The second patch should be to introduce your new driver. >> >> I see this driver has a lot of separate files, so what should happen here IMHO is: >> >> 1. a preparation patch adding a hp subdir moving the existing hp drivers there > > This will be a separate patch but not an obstacle to gain approval of > hp-bioscfg driver, correct? Right, this is just shuffling things around a bit because as we get more and more drivers having them all in one dir becomes a bit unwieldly. > >> 2. but this driver in a subdir of the hp subdir, so put all its files under: >> >> drivers/platform/x86/hp/hp-bioscfg >> >> so as to keep the files together and separate from other hp drivers. > > Can you please clarify.. > > Do I need to start a new review with only two patches described earlier? > > 1. a preparation patch adding a hp subdir moving the existing hp drivers there > 2. Squash (current version v1 and v2 changes) into one Ah, no, splitting step 2 as you did into multiple patches is fine, reviewing multiple small patches typically also is easier. So keeping the addition of the hp-bioscfg split into multiple patches is good. The point which I was trying to make is to put all the files for hp-bioscfg in their own sub-sub-dir and not mix them with the other driver files in a single hp dir. Regards, Hans
