From: "Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>
To: Armin Wolf <W_Armin@gmx.de>
Cc: "Sebastian Reichel" <sre@kernel.org>,
"Jeremy Soller" <jeremy@system76.com>,
"System76 Product Development" <productdev@system76.com>,
"Hans de Goede" <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/6] power: supply: extension API
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 12:26:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86cafef5-8a41-46c8-8ee6-6b25dd165b58@t-8ch.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41964782-222c-45fa-846e-3656eff5b3a9@gmx.de>
On 2024-06-07 01:10:02+0000, Armin Wolf wrote:
> Am 06.06.24 um 16:50 schrieb Thomas Weißschuh:
>
> > Introduce a mechanism for drivers to extend the properties implemented
> > by a power supply.
> >
> > Motivation
> > ----------
> >
> > Various drivers, mostly in platform/x86 extend the ACPI battery driver
> > with additional sysfs attributes to implement more UAPIs than are
> > exposed through ACPI by using various side-channels, like WMI,
> > nonstandard ACPI or EC communication.
> >
> > While the created sysfs attributes look similar to the attributes
> > provided by the powersupply core, there are various deficiencies:
> >
> > * They don't show up in uevent payload.
> > * They can't be queried with the standard in-kernel APIs.
> > * They don't work with triggers.
> > * The extending driver has to reimplement all of the parsing,
> > formatting and sysfs display logic.
> > * Writing a extension driver is completely different from writing a
> > normal power supply driver.
> > * Properties can not be properly overriden.
> >
> > The proposed extension API avoids all of these issues.
> > An extension is just a "struct power_supply_ext" with the same kind of
> > callbacks as in a normal "struct power_supply_desc".
> >
> > The API is meant to be used via battery_hook_register(), the same way as
> > the current extensions.
> >
> > For example my upcoming cros_ec charge control driver[0] saves 80 lines
> > of code with this patchset.
> >
> > Contents
> > --------
> >
> > * Patch 1 and 2 are generic preparation patches, that probably make
> > sense without this series.
> > * Patch 3 implements the extension API itself.
> > * Patch 4 implements a PoC locking scheme for the extension API.
> > * Patch 5 adds extension support to test_power.c
> > * Patch 6 converts the in-tree platform/x86/system76 driver to the
> > extension API.
> >
> > Open issues
> > -----------
> >
> > * Newly registered properties will not show up in hwmon.
> > To do that properly would require some changes in the hwmon core.
> > As far as I know, no current driver would extend the hwmon properties anyways.
> > * As this is only useful with the hooks of CONFIG_ACPI_BATTERY, should
> > it also be gated behind this or another config?
> > * Only one extension can be used at a time.
> > So far this should be enough, having more would complicate the
> > implementation.
> > * Is an rw_semaphore acceptable?
> >
> > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240528-cros_ec-charge-control-v2-0-81fb27e1cff4@weissschuh.net/
>
> Nice, i love this proposal!
Good to hear!
> I agree that the hwmon update functionality will need some changes in the hwmon core to work,
> but there would be at least one driver benefiting from this (dell-wmi-ddv). Maybe we can add
> support for this at a later point in time.
Surely. Alternatively we could re-register the hwmon device after an
extension was added.
> The possibility of registering multiple power supply extensions on a single power supply will
> be necessary to support battery charge control on Dell notebooks in the future. This is because
> there will be two drivers on Dell notebooks which register battery extensions: dell-wmi-ddv and
> dell-laptop (when support for battery charge control is supported someday).
>
> How difficult would it be to support such scenarios? If its very difficult, then maybe we can implement
> this later when the need arises.
It's not really difficult. The problem is in the callback functions
going from a 'struct power_supply' back to the correct extension struct
for use with container_of() to access the drivers private data.
But we can add a marker member to 'struct power_supply_ext' with which
the callback can figure out which of the registered extensions is its
own. Something like "led_hw_trigger_type" in the LED subsystem.
And some documentation about how conflicts are to be resolved.
Thomas
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@weissschuh.net>
> > ---
> > Thomas Weißschuh (6):
> > power: supply: sysfs: use power_supply_property_is_writeable()
> > power: supply: core: avoid iterating properties directly
> > power: supply: core: implement extension API
> > power: supply: core: add locking around extension access
> > power: supply: test-power: implement a power supply extension
> > platform/x86: system76: Use power_supply extension API
> >
> > drivers/platform/x86/system76_acpi.c | 83 +++++++++---------
> > drivers/power/supply/power_supply.h | 9 ++
> > drivers/power/supply/power_supply_core.c | 136 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > drivers/power/supply/power_supply_hwmon.c | 48 +++++------
> > drivers/power/supply/power_supply_sysfs.c | 39 ++++++---
> > drivers/power/supply/test_power.c | 102 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/power_supply.h | 25 ++++++
> > 7 files changed, 357 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-)
> > ---
> > base-commit: 2df0193e62cf887f373995fb8a91068562784adc
> > change-id: 20240602-power-supply-extensions-07d949f509d9
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-07 10:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-06 14:50 Thomas Weißschuh
2024-06-06 14:50 ` [PATCH RFC 1/6] power: supply: sysfs: use power_supply_property_is_writeable() Thomas Weißschuh
2024-06-06 14:50 ` [PATCH RFC 2/6] power: supply: core: avoid iterating properties directly Thomas Weißschuh
2024-06-06 14:50 ` [PATCH RFC 3/6] power: supply: core: implement extension API Thomas Weißschuh
2024-06-06 14:50 ` [PATCH RFC 4/6] power: supply: core: add locking around extension access Thomas Weißschuh
2024-06-06 14:50 ` [PATCH RFC 5/6] power: supply: test-power: implement a power supply extension Thomas Weißschuh
2024-06-06 14:51 ` [PATCH RFC 6/6] platform/x86: system76: Use power_supply extension API Thomas Weißschuh
2024-06-06 23:10 ` [PATCH RFC 0/6] power: supply: " Armin Wolf
2024-06-07 10:26 ` Thomas Weißschuh [this message]
2024-06-08 16:27 ` Armin Wolf
2024-06-08 17:02 ` Thomas Weißschuh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=86cafef5-8a41-46c8-8ee6-6b25dd165b58@t-8ch.de \
--to=linux@weissschuh.net \
--cc=W_Armin@gmx.de \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jeremy@system76.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=productdev@system76.com \
--cc=sre@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®