Re: [PATCH v2] platform/x86: intel-hid: Add support for Device Specific Methods

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 2:37 AM, Srinivas Pandruvada
<srinivas.pandruvada@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-07-07 at 19:24 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 6:48 AM,  <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > I strongly advocate for vendors to have more control over their
>> > > drivers,
>> > > but this scenario really frustrates me. I don't think I can
>> > > justify this
>> > > to Linus as a fix. But before we just say "no" (because hey, I
>> > > want
>> > > these fixes available as early as possible too), let's ask Rafael
>> > > if he
>> > > has an opinion or if there is precedent for this in his
>> > > experience with
>> > > ACPI drivers in general:
>> >
>> > Full disclosure - an updated FW has since been rolled out that
>> > reverted this
>> > behavior back to previous FW behavior due to lack of Linux support
>> > for the
>> > new _DSM.  There is desire to use the new interface (as it did fix
>> > actual
>> > problems with the old one) so at some point it may return.  When
>> > that happens
>> > it would be ideal that people who are (for example) running an LTS
>> > kernel
>> > or distro kernel that tracks stable can pick it up too.
>>
>> I am all for the better user experience and bugs especially in FW
>> should be fixed, but I think to support all kind of behaviour the new
>> FW release should always provide a knob by which we can check if some
>> feature is supported or not.
>>
>> Above sounds to me as mistake in design of the fix.
> The fix here takes care of all the combination. If the new _DSM is
> available, it checks what functionality the _DSM interface can provide
> (Fn 0). For those functionality it gets using _DSM matching new FW
> interface. If there is no _DSM or _DSM doesn't provide the
> functionality or _DSM provided method fails, it still revert to old FW
> interface style using standalone method. Eventually because of
> configurable 5-button array, all platforms will be using new FW
> interface with consideration of backward compatibility.

Srinivas, thanks for elaboration.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko