Re: [PATCH v2] platform/chrome: Don't populate lightbar device if it isn't there

[Stephen Boyd]

Quoting Stephen Boyd (2020-09-10 17:53:07)
> Quoting Enric Balletbo i Serra (2020-09-10 08:49:42)
> > On 10/9/20 16:52, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:32 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
> > > <enric.balletbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> On 10/9/20 16:18, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 3:42 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>> @@ -206,6 +209,17 @@ static int ec_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >>>>                 }
> > >>>>         }
> > >>>>
> > >>>> +       if (!strcmp(ec_platform->ec_name, CROS_EC_DEV_NAME) &&
> > >>>> +           !cros_ec_get_lightbar_version(ec, NULL, NULL)) {
> > >>>
> > >>> Any idea why the lightbar code doesn't use cros_ec_check_features() ?
> > >>> There is a definition for EC_FEATURE_LIGHTBAR, but it doesn't seem to
> > >>> be used. It would be much more convenient if that feature check could
> > >>> be used instead of moving the get_lightbar_version command and its
> > >>> helper function around.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> IIRC it was to support a very old device, the Pixel Chromebook (Link). This flag
> > >> is not set in this device but has a lightbar, hence we had this 'weird' way to
> > >> detect the lightbar.
> > >>
> > > 
> > > If that is the only reason, wouldn't it be better to use something
> > > else (eg dmi_match) to determine if the system in question is a  Pixel
> > > Chromebook (Link) ?
> > > 
> > >              if (!strcmp(ec_platform->ec_name, CROS_EC_DEV_NAME) &&
> > >                  (cros_ec_check_features(ec, EC_FEATURE_LIGHTBAR) ||
> > >                   dmi_match(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "Link")) {
> > > 
> > 
> > That looks a better solution, indeed. And definetely I'd prefer use the check
> > features way.
> > 
> > Gwendal, can you confirm that the Pixel Chromebook (Link) is the _only_ one
> > affected? This one is the only that comes to my mind but I might miss others.
> > 
> > I think that Samus has this flag (I can double check) and this was discussed
> > with you (long, long time ago :-) )
> > 
> 
> Sounds fine by me. I'll wait for Gwendal to inform us.

Anything come of this? I haven't seen any updates.