Hi Andy, On Tue Feb 11, 2025 at 2:04 PM -05, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 12:59:53PM -0500, Kurt Borja wrote: >> On Tue Feb 11, 2025 at 11:56 AM -05, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 10:46:07AM -0500, Kurt Borja wrote: > > ... > >> >> obj-$(CONFIG_ALIENWARE_WMI) += alienware-wmi.o >> >> alienware-wmi-objs := alienware-wmi-base.o >> >> +alienware-wmi-y += alienware-wmi-legacy.o >> >> +alienware-wmi-y += alienware-wmi-wmax.o >> > >> > Oh my... it's even inconsistent! >> >> Again, this is an already used pattern: > >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.14-rc2/source/drivers/platform/x86/dell/Makefile#L14 >> >> I add configuration entries later. Is the order of the changes wrong? or >> is it the entire approach? Do other modules here need a fix? > > Again, it doesn't mean it's correct. > > Maybe other modules also need that, I don't remember, but you may `git log > --no-merges --author="Andy" --grep objs` to see changes I made in the past. Sorry! Everything made more sense after reading the docs and checking your commits. I submitted a patch fixing this. Thank you for pointing it out! > > ... > >> >> + if (!ret) { >> >> + if (out_data == 0) >> >> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "[disabled] s5 s5_s4\n"); >> >> + else if (out_data == 1) >> >> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "disabled [s5] s5_s4\n"); >> >> + else if (out_data == 2) >> >> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "disabled s5 [s5_s4]\n"); >> > >> > The whole code inherited same issues like redundant 'else'. Please, refactor. >> >> This is not my code, so a separate patch would be needed. > > Okay! > > ... > >> >> + if (strcmp(buf, "disabled\n") == 0) >> >> + args.arg = 0; >> >> + else if (strcmp(buf, "s5\n") == 0) >> >> + args.arg = 1; >> >> + else >> >> + args.arg = 2; >> > >> > sysfs_match_string() >> >> Same as above. > > Same as above :-) > > ... > >> >> + if ((code & WMAX_THERMAL_TABLE_MASK) == WMAX_THERMAL_TABLE_USTT && >> >> + (code & WMAX_THERMAL_MODE_MASK) <= THERMAL_MODE_USTT_LOW_POWER) >> >> + return true; >> >> + >> >> + return false; >> > >> > return ... >> > >> > but if you wish, this one is okay. >> >> This was done for readibility. Also this would require a different >> patch. > > No need, I'm fine with the current approach, just to show the alternatives. > > ... > >> >> + ret = wmax_thermal_information(priv->wdev, WMAX_OPERATION_SYS_DESCRIPTION, >> >> + 0, (u32 *) &sys_desc); >> > >> > How do you guarantee an alignment? Yes, it might be good for the specific >> > hardware, but in general this is broken code. >> >> This is a good question. I'm not really sure how to fix this tho. Is it >> fine to just pass a __packed struct? Also this would require another >> patch. > > Usual approach here is to use one of get_unaligned_le32(), get_unaligned_be32() > depending on the byte ordering. > >> >> + if (ret < 0) >> >> + return ret; > > ... > >> >> + set_bit(profile, choices); >> > >> > Do you need it to be atomic? >> >> I don't think so. `choices` belongs to this thread only. > > So, __set_bit() will suffice then. For some reason I thought `set_bit` was the non-atomic one. This is good to know. > > ... > >> >> +void __exit alienware_wmax_wmi_exit(void) >> >> +{ >> >> + wmi_driver_unregister(&alienware_wmax_wmi_driver); >> >> +} >> > >> > Why not moving these boilerplate to ->probe() and use module_wmi_driver()? >> >> This 3 files are a single module and it has two WMI drivers so this >> can't be used. > > Can it be split to two separate modules then? These two WMI drivers share a lot of features on old alienware models. Hence why I decided to link them together. IMO this bit of boilerplate is a fair tradeoff. Thank you again for your feedback. I was completely unaware of some things you pointed out. I will implement your suggestions soon. -- ~ Kurt
