On Thu, 8 Oct 2026, Rong Zhang wrote: > Hi Ilpo, > > On Wed, 2026-10-07 at 23:54 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Oct 2026, Derek J. Clark wrote: > > > > > On October 7, 2026 11:30:00 AM PDT, Rong Zhang wrote: > > > > Hi Mark, Armin, > > > > > > > > 于 2026年9月29日 GMT+08:00 01:53:18，Rong Zhang 写道： > > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the information. > > > > > > > > > > 于 2026年9月29日 GMT+08:00 00:04:14，Mark Pearson 写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 26, 2026, at 11:01 PM, Rong Zhang wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Navon, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for your test. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 于 2026年9月27日 GMT+08:00 05:04:15，Navon John Lukose > > > > > > > 写道： > > > > > > > > Tested on a Yoga Pro 7 14IAH10 (83KF, BIOS QGCN35WW). Neither mainline > > > > > > > > nor the series binds here. This firmware has no > > > > > > > > LENOVO_CAPABILITY_DATA_01 in _WDG at all, so no component ever > > > > > > > > registers for that match and lwmi_om_master_bind() never runs. Skipping > > > > > > > > the match for GUIDs the firmware doesn't declare fixes it: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/wmi-capdata.c b/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/wmi-capdata.c > > > > > > > > index 805e36ef7..d64520be1 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/wmi-capdata.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/wmi-capdata.c > > > > > > > > @@ -76,11 +76,13 @@ enum lwmi_cd_type { > > > > > > > > #define LWMI_CD_TABLE_ITEM(_type) \ > > > > > > > > [_type] = { \ > > > > > > > > .name = #_type, \ > > > > > > > > + .guid = _type##_GUID, \ > > > > > > > > .type = _type, \ > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static const struct lwmi_cd_info { > > > > > > > > const char *name; > > > > > > > > + const char *guid; > > > > > > > > enum lwmi_cd_type type; > > > > > > > > } lwmi_cd_table[] = { > > > > > > > > LWMI_CD_TABLE_ITEM(LENOVO_CAPABILITY_DATA_00), > > > > > > > > @@ -166,6 +168,14 @@ void lwmi_cd_match_add_all(struct device *master, struct component_match **match > > > > > > > > if (lwmi_cd_table[i].type == LENOVO_FAN_TEST_DATA) > > > > > > > > continue; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > > > + * Some firmware does not declare every capdata GUID at all, in > > > > > > > > + * which case no component would ever register for it and the > > > > > > > > + * master could never bind. > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > + if (!wmi_has_guid(lwmi_cd_table[i].guid)) > > > > > > > > + continue; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was exactly what I did in the earlier revision while I was > > > > > > > introducing the support for capdata00 and capdata_fan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The wmi_has_guid() approach was eventually replaced by the > > > > > > > sub-component approach, because the use of the former is strongly > > > > > > > discouraged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the next revision I am going to convert capdata01 into a > > > > > > > sub-component, too. In this manner some heavy and complex work in the > > > > > > > series will become needless and can be simplified. While the > > > > > > > sub-component approach itself is complex, we've had the infrastructure > > > > > > > to make it work. Therefore wiring it up should be a trivial work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark, Derek, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you know if there is any way to determine the existence of capdata01 > > > > > > > using capdata00? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that I can see I'm afraid > > > > > > > > So there is no way to determine the existence of capdata01 using capdata00, correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm guessing the patch Armin posted on my thread "[RFC PATCH 5/7] platform/x86: think-lmi: Initial ThinkLMI v2 driver" to check if it exists won't help here? > > > > > > > > > > After some consideration, it seems that we don't really need to determine the existence of capdata01 if we take the sub-component approach, thanks to the fact that every functionality either depends on capdata00 or depends on capdata01, but never both. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, it turned out that it can't resolve the issue by simply converting capdata01 into a sub-component, unless a virtual device is also created to split the component matching list into two, which is more like a dirty workaround. > > > > > > > > So yeah, the series needs the wmidev_exists() patch from Armin. > > > > Considering that the ThinkLMI v2 series is probably still at the RFC > > > > stage, do you mind if I integrate the wmidev_exists() patch into my > > > > series? > > > > > > Rong/Mark, > > > > > > My $0.02, I don't think it matters who sends it up. If Ilpo is okay with > > > it of course, both series should include it as a prerequisite 1/X and > > > whichever gets picked up first will get into next. Then that patch can > > > be omitted from the other series when it gets picked. That way both > > > series will build if you apply the mbox onto next until one is merged. > > > > Hi, > > > > For me it's fine either way: > > > > 1) Have the same patch in both series. > > > > 2) If we know for sure we need the API anyway, just add it as a standalone > > in advance. > > > > I suppose 2 would be slightly simpler but it's up to you which way you > > prefer. > > > > Lets not make things more complicated than they have to be. :-) > > Thanks for you suggestion. > > The v2 patch is almost ready, and I will submit it today or tomorrow. It > will anyway depend on the wmidev_exists() patch to build, so I'd prefer > 1. > > Or we can combine 1 and 2 -- do a subset apply with the wmidev_exists() > patch if it looks good but my v2 series has issues. Then Mark and I can > rebase and resubmit. I've no problem in taking only a part of series as needed, if you prefer that. Armin had something to say about the interface but I suppose you saw that already. -- i.