On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 01:53:33PM -0400, Mark Pearson wrote:
> Thanks Thomas
>
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2023, at 12:35 PM, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > please also CC linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and previous reviewers.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 11:46:34AM -0400, Mark Pearson wrote:
> >> -static struct kobj_attribute attr_current_val = __ATTR_RW_MODE(current_value, 0600);
> >> +static ssize_t type_show(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_attribute *attr,
> >> + char *buf)
> >> +{
> >> + struct tlmi_attr_setting *setting = to_tlmi_attr_setting(kobj);
> >> +
> >> + if (setting->possible_values) {
> >> + /* Figure out what setting type is as BIOS does not return this */
> >> + if (strchr(setting->possible_values, ','))
> >> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "enumeration\n");
> >> + }
> >> + /* Anything else is going to be a string */
> >> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "string\n");
> >> +}
> >
> > This patch seems to introduce a lot of churn, is it intentional?
> Yes(ish). It got cleaned up as the functions were in a weird order when I introduced the is_visible. The actual changes are very small - but it did make it look messier than it really is.
> Is this a big concern? I know it makes the review a bit more painful and my apologies for that.
Not a big concern. The shuffling around could be done in a dedicated
patch that explicitly only moves code around.
> >> @@ -1440,6 +1451,25 @@ static int tlmi_analyze(void)
> >> if (ret || !setting->possible_values)
> >> pr_info("Error retrieving possible values for %d : %s\n",
> >> i, setting->display_name);
> >> + } else {
> >> + /*
> >> + * Older Thinkstations don't support the bios_selections API.
> >> + * Instead they store this as a [Optional:Option1,Option2] section of the
> >> + * name string.
> >> + * Try and pull that out if it's available.
> >> + */
> >> + char *item, *optstart, *optend;
> >> +
> >> + if (!tlmi_setting(setting->index, &item, LENOVO_BIOS_SETTING_GUID)) {
> >> + optstart = strstr(item, "[Optional:");
> >> + if (optstart) {
> >> + optstart += strlen("[Optional:");
> >> + optend = strstr(optstart, "]");
> >> + if (optend)
> >> + setting->possible_values =
> >> + kstrndup(optstart, optend - optstart, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >
> > The patch now does two things:
> > 1) Hide the sysfs attributes if the value is not available
> > 2) Extract the value from the description
> >
> > Maybe it could be split in two?
> Sure. I did contemplate that and then ultimately decided it was all from the same intent so left it. But I can split.
Would look nicer to me, but it's only one opinion.
> >
> > Another observation:
> > Would it make sense to remove the part
> > "[Optional:Option1,Option2]" from the name attribute?
> >
> I considered this previously and I was concerned about if this could
> have impacts that I couldn't foresee. The BIOS teams do strange things
> with this string so I was playing safe and leaving it alone
> (especially as it differs across the different portfolios)
>
> I know it would be nice to have one standard for everything but sadly that's not the case, and not a battle I can win.
Fair enough.
