On August 30, 2019 7:55:05 PM GMT+08:00, Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote: >On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 08:00:24AM +0800, Peter Cai wrote: >> The firmware of GPD P2 Max could not handle panel resets although >code >> is present in DSDT. The kernel needs to take on this job instead, but >> the DSDT does not provide _DSD, rendering kernel helpless when trying >to >> find the respective GPIO pins. >> >> Fortunately, this time GPD has proper DMI vendor / product strings >that >> we could match against. We simply apply an acpi_gpio_mapping table >when >> GPD P2 Max is matched. >> >> Additionally, the DSDT definition of the irq pin specifies a wrong >> polarity. The new quirk introduced in the previous patch >> (ACPI_GPIO_QUIRK_OVERRIDE_POLARITY) is applied to correct this. > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI > >I guess most of these #ifdef:s makes code less readable for exchange of >saving >few bytes in the module footprint. > >> + { "irq-gpios", &irq_gpios_default, 1, >> + ACPI_GPIO_QUIRK_OVERRIDE_POLARITY }, > >One line? > >> + .matches = { >> + DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "GPD"), >> + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "P2 MAX") > >Comma at the end? > >> + }, >> + .driver_data = &gpio_mapping_force_irq_active_high > >Ditto.
> I guess most of these #ifdef:s makes code less readable for exchange of saving few bytes in the module footprint. Since they can only be used when ACPI is supported (devm_acpi_dev_add_driver_gpios does not exist without ACPI defined, thus the last guard must exist), if they were not guarded then we would be left with a bunch of unused variables warnings when building without ACPI which doesn't seem good. Should we use __maybe_unused here instead of #ifdef guards? > Comma at the end? I was trying to follow the style of this driver but it doesn't seem to be really consistent within itself. Another dmi_system_id definition in the same file mixed both styles so I was kind of confused. -- Regards, Xiyu Cai
