Messages in this thread | | | From | Maximilian Luz <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: Add Driver to set up lid GPEs on MS Surface device | Date | Tue, 8 Sep 2020 22:19:27 +0200 |
| |
On 9/8/20 8:40 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:20 PM Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>> + .gpe_number = 0x17, >> + .gpe_number = 0x4D, >> + .gpe_number = 0x4F, >> + .gpe_number = 0x57, > > From where these numbers come from? Can we get them from firmware (ACPI)?
Yes, they are obtained from ACPI/the DSDT. Specifically from the name of the GPE handler notifying the lid device. See [1] for a repo full of Surface ACPI dumps (source for this). I'll add a comment pointing this out in v2.
[1]: https://github.com/linux-surface/acpidumps
...
>> +static int surface_gpe_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> +{ >> + const struct surface_lid_device *lid; >> + int status; >> + > >> + lid = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev); >> + if (!lid) >> + return -ENODEV; > > Can we use software nodes?
As far as I can tell this would work via fwnode_create_software_node / fwnode_remove_software_node and device properties? I don't seem to find much documentation on this (there doesn't seem to be an entry for software nodes in the official docs?), but I think I should be able to make this work.
>> + status = acpi_mark_gpe_for_wake(NULL, lid->gpe_number); >> + if (status) { >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to mark GPE for wake: %d\n", status); >> + return -EINVAL; >> + } >> + > >> + status = acpi_enable_gpe(NULL, lid->gpe_number); > > Did I miss anything or all calls of enable / disable GPE are using > NULL as a first parameter? What the point in such case?
As far as I can tell, some of the more generic uses have a non-NULL gpe_device parameter (acpi/device_pm.c, acpi/wakeup.c) and NULL just means index-0/main device? Not an expert on that though, so probably just ignore me here and let the ACPI guys answer this.
...
>> +MODULE_ALIAS("dmi:*:svnMicrosoftCorporation:pnSurfacePro:*"); >> +MODULE_ALIAS("dmi:*:svnMicrosoftCorporation:pnSurfacePro4:*"); > > Can simply > > MODULE_ALIAS("dmi:*:svnMicrosoftCorporation:pnSurface*:*"); > > work?
Depends on your preference, really. That would also auto-load the module on Surface Pro 3 and earlier devices (just won't do anything on those). So it's a trade-off between unnecessary loading of the module and maintainability/readability. Let me know what you prefer and I'll switch to that.
Style and other issues are noted, I'll fix them for v2.
Regards, Max
| |