Hi,
On 3/19/23 01:08, Mark Pearson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2023, at 7:52 PM, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I have worked through this and it is nicer. Next version will be split (and I unwound some of the code re-org too).
> I'm going to hold off a couple of days before pushing the changes for review in case there are other pieces of feedback.
Thomas, many thanks for all the reviews!
Mark, since Thomas is doing such a great job of reviewing this patch-set, don't expect any remarks from me before you post the next version. IOW if the next version is ready, don't wait for my feedback before submitting it :)
Regards,
Hans
>
> Mark
>
