On 10/17/2022 10:37, Hans de Goede wrote:
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.
The AMD drivers just underwent this very recently too, as did Intel
about 6 months before. If you want an example of what they did you can
use this to reference the AMD one:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/ef233eafe5adc54ddc39a1b6cc483dddc744bf97
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 split right now is along changes requested on v1 -> v2 rather than
along making the driver into functional pieces.
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
