Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] mfd / platform: cros_ec: move lightbar attributes to its own driver. | From | Enric Balletbo i Serra <> | Date | Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:52:52 +0100 |
| |
Hi Lee,
On 4/12/18 10:21, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 03 Dec 2018, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote: >> On 3/12/18 11:36, Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote: >>> >>>> The entire way how cros sysfs attibutes are created is broken. >>>> cros_ec_lightbar should be its own driver and its attributes should be >>>> associated with a lightbar driver not the mfd driver. In order to retain >>>> the path, the lightbar attributes are attached to the cros_class. >>> >>> I'm not exactly clear on what a lightbar is, but shouldn't it live in >>> the appropriate subsystem. Like LED for example? >>> >> >> The lightbar is a four-color indicator available on some Chromebook, but the >> fact that can you can program this lightbar with different sequences, including >> user defined sequences makes the device a bit special and very chrome platform >> specific. The same happens with the VBC driver. > > Being Chrome specific doesn't necessarily mean that these drivers > shouldn't reside in a proper subsystem. A lot of drivers in the > kernel are only relevant to very specific hardware/platforms. >
Agree, and we try to put these drivers in their subsystem when we think it is appropriate (we have in rtc, power, iio, keyboard, etc.)
> IMHO code in drivers/platform should pertain only to the core platform > itself. Any drivers for leaf hardware/functionality should be split > out into the subsystems, however niche you think they are. >
To be honest, I don't have a hard opinion yet on if the drivers/platform should pertain only to the core platform itself.
The cros_ec_lightbar.c file already exists in drivers/platform, the patch just converts it to a kernel module (only adds few lines). The main purpose of the se patches was have cros-ec mfd code and their subdrivers separated instead of having crossed calls.
I don't mind to move to another subsystem (I need to discuss with the chromium guys and I am still not sure if LED fits very well in this case, I can look in more detail) but shouldn't be this a follow up patch?
I am also worried on how this could affect the current user interface. Well, something to look, right.
Thanks, Enric
> I also understand the convenience factor of not having to go through > a !Google Maintainer, but this is not a loophole I'm prepared to > support. ;) > >> Other subdevices like, rtc, keyboard, usbpd charger,etc. are already in their >> subsystems. >> >>>> The patch also adds the sysfs documentation. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Changes in v3: >>>> - Removed unneded check for ec_dev. >>>> >>>> Changes in v2: >>>> - Removed the two exported functions to attach/detach to the cros_class. >>>> - Use dev_warn instead of dev_err when adding the lightbar. >>>> >>>> ...sfs-class-chromeos-driver-cros-ec-lightbar | 74 +++++++++++++++ >>>> drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.c | 24 ++--- >>>> drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.h | 6 -- >>>> drivers/platform/chrome/Kconfig | 10 ++ >>>> drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile | 3 +- >>>> drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_lightbar.c | 95 ++++++++++++++----- >>>> include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h | 1 - >>>> 7 files changed, 172 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-) >>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-chromeos-driver-cros-ec-lightbar >>> >
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |