Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] ACPI: video: Remove CONFIG_X86 handling from nvidia_wmi_ec_supported()

[Patrik Jakobsson]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 9:57 PM Armin Wolf <W_Armin@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Am 18.09.26 um 15:03 schrieb Alex Deucher:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 7:01 AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 18 Sep 2026, Hans de Goede <hansg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On 16-Sep-26 09:16, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2026, Armin Wolf <W_Armin@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> Am 15.09.26 um 14:31 schrieb Jani Nikula:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026, Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>> GPU people heads up!!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Sep 2026, Armin Wolf wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Am 01.09.26 um 23:30 schrieb Deucher, Alexander:
> >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/Kconfig
> >>>>>>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/Kconfig
> >>>>>>>>>> index 12e4a41bf1f0..50305630f533 100644
> >>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/Kconfig
> >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/Kconfig
> >>>>>>>>>> @@ -30,9 +30,7 @@ config DRM_AMDGPU
> >>>>>>>>>>          # ACPI_VIDEO's dependencies must also be selected.
> >>>>>>>>>>          select INPUT if ACPI
> >>>>>>>>>>          select ACPI_VIDEO if ACPI
> >>>>>>>>>> -     # On x86 ACPI_VIDEO also needs ACPI_WMI
> >>>>>>>>>> -     select X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES if ACPI && X86
> >>>>>>>>> The change below makes sense, but this one looks like it should remain
> >>>>>>>>> unless X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES is handled some other way?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Alex
> >>>>>>>> AFAIK the dependency on X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES was only necessary because
> >>>>>>>> ACPI-WMI depended on it in the past.
> >>>>>>>> By now ACPI-WMI neither depends on X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES or X86 anymore.
> >>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Could more GPU people besides Alex take a look on this. I'd want to make
> >>>>>>> progress with this series within this cycle but would prefer to have Acks
> >>>>>>> from GPU side.
> >>>>>> I share the same concern with Alex. It seems to me we could now end up
> >>>>>> with x86 configurations without X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES, which handle
> >>>>>> e.g. backlight on a lot of platforms.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think the safer option might be to go for:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     depends on X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES || !X86
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> in all of the cases that select/depend on X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES in drm.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The alternative is to find out, and handle the fallout, if any.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> BR,
> >>>>>> Jani.
> >>>>> Alright, should i leave the original "select X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES if ..." statements
> >>>>> as-is or should is change them to "depends on X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES || !X86" everywhere?
> >>>> There are some places that depends on X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES. I think it's
> >>>> almost always a mistake to have some places select and some places
> >>>> depends on, and select should anyway be used with care. I'd go for
> >>>> depends on.
> >>> I'm a bit late to the party here, sorry.
> >>>
> >>> Note that X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES is an option which enables / disables
> >>> a menu and does nothing more.
> >>>
> >>> Enabling it or depending on it by itself does nothing.
> >>>
> >>> The select used to be there since it must be selected to be able
> >>> to select ACPI_WMI (which is no longer the case after this series).
> >>>
> >>> To depends on in XE was probably copy pasted from the existing
> >>> select-s and then changed to a depends and already was a completely
> >>> no-op since depending on ACPI_WMI was enough as that itself
> >>> dependend on ACPI_WMI.
> >>>
> >>> As for X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES being needed for some backlight
> >>> interfaces, depending on it by itself does not result in those
> >>> interfaces being there. That requires enabling the actual drivers
> >>> providing those interfaces.
> >>>
> >>> And I don't think that the GPU drivers should start depending
> >>> on those since that will become very unyielding.
> >>>
> >>> TL;DR: I believe Armin's original patch is fine and this is
> >>> a welcome cleanup / simplification of the DRM drivers Kconfig
> >>> bits.
> >> Your explanation makes sense, thanks.
> > Yeah, sounds good.  Thanks!
> >
> > Alex
>
> Nice, i suppose we can apply this series as-is then?

Sorry I'm a bit late here, but for the gma500 part:
Acked-by: Patrik Jakobsson <patrik.r.jakobsson@xxxxxxxxx>

>
> Thanks,
> Armin Wolf
>
> >> BR,
> >> Jani.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jani Nikula, Intel