Re: [RFC PATCH v2] platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop: Add battery charge control support

[Armin Wolf]

Am 03.02.24 um 01:17 schrieb Szilard Fabian:

> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 03:02:09AM +0100, Armin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 29.01.24 um 19:00 schrieb Szilard Fabian:
> > > +
> > > +	return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", status);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(charge_control_end_threshold);
> > > +
> > > +/* ACPI battery hook */
> > > +
> > > +static int fujitsu_battery_add(struct power_supply *battery,
> > > +			       struct acpi_battery_hook *hook)
> > > +{
> > > +	/* Check if there is an existing FUJ02E3 ACPI device. */
> > > +	if (fext == NULL)
> > > +		return -ENODEV;
> > Can you put the struct acpi_battery_hook into the struct fujitsu_laptop
> > and then use container_of() to retrieve the ACPI device from there?
> > The dell-wmi-ddv driver does something similar.
> >
> > This would guarantee that the battery hook always accesses the correct ACPI device
> > and you could drop this check.
> >
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Check if the S006 0x21 method exists by trying to get the current
> > > +	 * battery charge limit.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	int s006_cc_return;
> > > +	s006_cc_return = call_fext_func(fext, FUNC_S006_METHOD,
> > > +					CHARGE_CONTROL_RW, 0x21, 0x0);
> > > +	if (s006_cc_return == UNSUPPORTED_CMD)
> > > +		return -ENODEV;
> > Maybe this check should be done once during probe?
> What about the following scenario?
> - Put a bool into the struct fujitsu_laptop to store information about the
>    machine's charge control ability.
> - The S006 0x21 method check with `battery_hook_register` gets moved into
>    an 'init function'. In that 'init function' the bool gets set accordingly.
> - `battery_hook_unregister` gets moved into an 'exit function', where the
>    bool gets read and when it's false nothing happens.
> - `fext` check gets removed from `fujitsu_battery_add` because it's
>    redundant (more about that later).
> - The 'init function' gets called in `acpi_fujitsu_laptop_add` and the 'exit
>    function' gets called in `acpi_fujitsu_laptop_remove`.
>
> With that scenario the code could be a little bit clearer in my opinion.
> And it is possible to drop the `fext` check because if the FUJ02E3 ACPI
> device exists `fext` gets set in the `acpi_fujitsu_laptop_add` function with
> an error check.
> (And the `fujitsu_battery_add` `fext` check was already redundant because
> `battery_hook_register` got called in `acpi_fujitsu_laptop_add`. `fext`
> gets set in the same function, and there is an error check already.)
>
> Thanks,
> Szilard
This would work too.

Armin Wolf