Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] platform/x86: asus-wmi: Call led hw_changed API on kbd brightness change
From: Chris Chiu
Date: Thu Jun 14 2018 - 02:58:40 EST
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Chris Chiu <chiu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Make asus-wmi notify on hotkey kbd brightness changes, listen for
>> brightness events and update the brightness directly in the driver.
>> For this purpose, bound check on brightness in kbd_led_set must be
>> based on the same data type to prevent illegal value been set.
>> @@ -497,9 +498,9 @@ static void kbd_led_set(struct led_classdev *led_cdev,
>> asus = container_of(led_cdev, struct asus_wmi, kbd_led);
>> - if (value > asus->kbd_led.max_brightness)
>> + if ((int)value > (int)asus->kbd_led.max_brightness)
>> value = asus->kbd_led.max_brightness;
>> - else if (value < 0)
>> + else if ((int)value < 0)
>> value = 0;
> I didn't quite understand this part of the problem.
> Does it exist in the current code? Can it be split to a separate change?
> Can we avoid those ugly castings?
I'd like to remove the ugly castings but there's a concern I may need some
advices. I don't know whether if the bound check logic ever verified before.
Maybe the value passed via sysfs is already correctly bounded?
When the kbd_led_wk comes to -1, `if (value > asus->kbd_led.max_brightness)`
returns true and `if (value < 0)` return false which confused me. It
to the 2nd argument type is enum led_brightness which I consider it as integer.
The unexpected return value cause the KBD_BRTDWN cyclic, 3->2->0->-1
(3 again in kbd_led_set)->2->1. After applying the casting on both operands
`if ((int)value > (int)asus->kbd_led.max_brightness)`, the other
returned by `if (value < 0)` makes each KBD_BRTDOWN to be 3 -> 2 -> 1 -> 0 ->
-1 -> -2 -> -3 ->..... That's what the ugly casting for. I used to
tend to do boundary
limit before calling kbd_led_set as follows
kbd_led_set(&asus->kbd_led, MIN(asus->kbd_led_wk + 1,
kbd_led_set(&asus->kbd_led, MAX(asus->kbd_led_wk - 1, 0));
If so, the boundary limit logic would be totally redundant but I think
it may be still
useful to check the value passed from sysfs? Any suggestion which one would
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko