On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 11:28:06AM -0600, Limonciello, Mario wrote: > > > > After giving it some thought, I agree with you and Hridesh. Kernel > > should not limit profile choices if they *are* selectable. > > > > If a "proof of concept" patch is still interesting I'll be glad to send > > it, otherwise I think my original idea has too many problems. User-space > > should be able to handle these special cases. > > > > I think an attribute allowing/disallowing power sensitive values is > > interesting. Maybe allow users too attach/detach individual profiles > > from being selected/cycled? On that note, it would also be interesting to > > be able to detach invidivual "profile handlers" from the legacy > > `acpi_kobj`. But I'm not sure if this added complexity would be worth it. > > > > Anyway.. Mario, do you think hiding platform_profile_handler from > > drivers is something worth pursuing? Similar to what the hwmon class > > does. I feel having some struct members like `minor` and `choices` > > exposed, or having the profile_get/profile_set callbacks not being > > const, while it's not the end of the world, could be problematic. > > Yeah, I think this is still an interesting idea that's still worth pursuing. > > Making the API simpler for drivers is a net benefit and reduction in tech > debt. That's good to hear. I'm working on it! Hopefully I'll be able to submit it in a couple of days. ~ Kurt >
