On Mon Jun 9, 2025 at 10:03 AM -03, Joshua Grisham wrote: > Den mån 9 juni 2025 kl 03:30 skrev Kurt Borja : >> >> Hi Joshua, >> >> On Sat Jun 7, 2025 at 1:38 PM -03, Joshua Grisham wrote: >> > Den lör 17 maj 2025 kl 10:52 skrev Kurt Borja : >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> These series adds the _long awaited_ API for the Firmware Attributes >> >> class. >> >> >> >> You'll find all the details in the commit messages and kernel-doc. >> >> >> >> I think it's easier to understand by example, so I used the >> >> samsung-galaxybook driver for this purpose (last patch). IMO code >> >> readibility, simplicity, maintainability, etc. is greatly improved, but >> >> there is still room for improvement of the API itself. For this reason I >> >> submitted this as an RFC. >> >> >> >> As always, your feedback is very appreciated :) >> >> >> >> Overview >> >> ======== >> >> >> >> Patch 1-2: New API with docs included. >> >> Patch 3: New firwmare attributes type >> >> Patch 4: Misc Maintainers patch >> >> Patch 5: samsung-galaxybook example >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja >> >> --- >> >> Changes in v2: >> >> >> >> [Patch 1] >> >> - Include kdev_t.h header >> >> >> >> [Patch 2] >> >> - Use one line comments in fwat_create_attrs() >> >> - Check propagate errors in fwat_create_attrs() >> >> - Add `mode` to fwat_attr_config and related macros to let users >> >> configure the `current_value` attribute mode >> >> - Use defined structs in fwat_attr_ops instead of anonymous ones >> >> - Move fwat_attr_type from config to ops >> >> >> >> [Patch 5] >> >> - Just transition to new API without chaing ABI >> >> >> >> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250509-fw-attrs-api-v1-0-258afed65bfa@gmail.com >> >> >> >> --- >> >> Kurt Borja (4): >> >> platform/x86: firmware_attributes_class: Add a high level API >> >> platform/x86: firmware_attributes_class: Add a boolean type >> >> MAINTAINERS: Add FIRMWARE ATTRIBUTES CLASS entry >> >> platform/x86: samsung-galaxybook: Transition to new firmware_attributes API >> >> >> >> Thomas Weißschuh (1): >> >> platform/x86: firmware_attributes_class: Add device initialization methods >> >> >> >> .../ABI/testing/sysfs-class-firmware-attributes | 1 + >> >> MAINTAINERS | 7 + >> >> drivers/platform/x86/firmware_attributes_class.c | 454 +++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> drivers/platform/x86/firmware_attributes_class.h | 276 +++++++++++++ >> >> drivers/platform/x86/samsung-galaxybook.c | 308 ++++++-------- >> >> 5 files changed, 861 insertions(+), 185 deletions(-) >> >> --- >> >> base-commit: 9f080c9f2099b5a81c85b3b7f95fd11fad428cc8 >> >> change-id: 20250326-fw-attrs-api-0eea7c0225b6 >> >> -- >> >> ~ Kurt >> >> >> > >> > Hi Kurt! First let me begin by saying GREAT job in picking this up, >> > carrying on the work from Thomas, and really trying to glue all of the >> > various pieces together into a packaged solution that can finally see >> > the light of day :) >> > >> > Sorry it has taken some time for me to get back to you--work and other >> > life stuff seemed to always get in the way and I wanted to make sure I >> > took enough time to really think about this before I were to give any >> > feedback myself. >> > >> > First off, the quick and easy one: I applied all of your patches (on >> > top of 6.15.1), tested everything with samsung-galaxybook from my >> > device, and everything is still working without any failures and all >> > features work as I expect them to. I diffed everything under >> > /sys/class/firmware-attributes before vs after and everything is >> > exactly the same EXCEPT it looks like what is currently >> > "default_value" will now be called "default" with your patch. I assume >> > if the intention is to keep the ABI same as before then you would >> > probably want to change this? Specifically here: >> > >> >> +static const char * const fwat_prop_labels[] = { >> >> + [FWAT_PROP_DISPLAY_NAME] = "display_name", >> >> + [FWAT_PROP_LANGUAGE_CODE] = "display_name_language_code", >> >> + [FWAT_PROP_DEFAULT] = "default", >> > >> > Assume the last line should instead be >> > >> > [FWAT_PROP_DEFAULT] = "default_value", >> > >> > or maybe even for consistency to rename the fwat_property to also >> > match and then it could be like this? >> > >> > [FWAT_PROP_DEFAULT_VALUE] = "default_value", >> >> Yes! You are correct. I completely missed this. >> >> > >> > FWIW I don't personally mind changing the ABI for samsung-galaxybook; >> > as you mentioned it is basically a brand new driver and the solutions >> > which exist "in the wild" for it are quite limited so better maybe >> > that it looks "right" going forward instead of carrying any >> > unnecessary baggage, but I can understand that this may not be the >> > case for all of the other drivers which have been using these >> > facilities for a longer time period. >> >> This was my first thought but I found out fwupd uses this interface. >> I'll leave the ABI as is to not incur in regressions. >> >> > >> > Past that, I certainly think this is a big step forward as compared to >> > messing around with the lower level kset / kobj_attribute etc >> > facilities and trying to set everything up from scratch without so >> > many helper utilities. As you may have noticed, what I ended up doing >> > in samsung-galaxybook was essentially to create my own local >> > implementation of some kind of "standard" fw attributes (but only for >> > booleans), but it would be even better if this were standardized >> > across all drivers! There are a few things left over in >> > samsung-galaxybook that still need to be cleaned up from your >> > suggested change (e.g. the struct galaxybook_fw_attr can now be >> > totally removed, etc) which we can also address at some point, of >> > course! >> >> Thanks! I'll clean them in the next revision. >> >> > >> > But just to take a step back for a moment, and what I have been really >> > trying to think through and reflect on myself for a few hours with >> > this change... >> > >> > (Please feel free to completely disregard the below if this has >> > already been brought up and ruled out, or anyone else has any opinions >> > against this; all of that feedback is welcome and most definitely >> > trumps my own meager opinions! ;) Also please remember that it is not >> > my intention at all to detract from any of the great work that has >> > already been done here -- just the stuff that my brain kind of gets >> > "stuck" on as I try to think through the bigger picture with this! ) >> >> Don't worry, feedback is always appreciated :) >> >> > >> > If I think in terms of anyone who wants to come in and work on device >> > drivers in the kernel, then they will potentially need to learn >> > facilities for multiple different kind of "attributes" depending on >> > their use case: device attributes, driver attributes, hwmon's >> > sensor-related attributes, bus attributes, etc etc, and for the most >> > part, I think they ALL have basically the same kind of interface and >> > facilities. It feels very unified and relatively easy to work with all >> > of them once you have basically figured out the scheme and conventions >> > that have been implemented. >> > >> > Now, when I look at the proposal from these patches, these "Firmware >> > Attributes" do not seem to have the same kind of "look, feel, and >> > smell" as the other type of attributes I just mentioned, but instead >> > feels like a totally new animal that must be learned separately. My >> > take on it would be that a desired/"dream" scenario for a device >> > driver developer is that all of these interfaces sort of look and >> > "smell" the same, it is just a matter of the name of the macro you >> > use, which device you attach the attributes to (which registration >> > function you need to execute??), and maybe some small subtle >> > differences in the facilities as appropriate to their context. >> > >> > Specifically with firmware attributes vs the other kinds, I guess the >> > biggest differences are that: >> > 1) There is a display_name with a language code >> > 2) There are built-in restrictions on the input values depending on a >> > "type" (e.g. "enumeration" type has a predetermined list of values, >> > min/max values or str lengths for numeric or string values, etc) >> > 3) There is a default_value >> > 4) *Maybe* there should be some kind of inheritance and/or sub-groups >> > (e.g. the "authentication" and similar extensions that create a group >> > under the parent group...) >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean this API should also >> offer a way to create the Authentication group, I agree! >> >> I was just hoping to get feedback from other maintainers before doing >> that. I want to know if this approach passes the "smell" test for >> everyone. >> >> > >> > But at the end of the day, my hope as a developer would be to be able >> > to create these firmware attributes in much the same way as the other >> > types. E.g. maybe something like this quick and dirty pseudo example: >> > >> > >> > static ssize_t power_on_lid_open_show(struct device *dev, >> > struct device_attribute *attr, >> > char *buf) >> > { >> > // ... >> > } >> > >> > static ssize_t power_on_lid_open_store(struct device *dev, >> > struct device_attribute *attr, >> > const char *buf, size_t count) >> > { >> > // ... >> > } >> > >> > static FW_BOOL_ATTR_RW(power_on_lid_open, "Power On Lid Open"); >> > >> > static struct attribute *galaxybook_fw_attrs[] = { >> > // ... other fw attrs not shown above ... >> > &fw_attr_power_on_lid_open.attr, >> > NULL >> > }; >> > >> > static const struct attribute_group galaxybook_fw_attrs_group = { >> > .attrs = galaxybook_fw_attrs, >> > .is_visible = galaxybook_fw_attr_visible, >> > }; >> > >> > static int galaxybook_fw_attrs_init(struct samsung_galaxybook *galaxybook) >> > { >> > // ... >> > >> > /* something like "devm_fw_attr_device_register" could be sort >> > of similar to >> > how devm_hwmon_device_register_with_groups works ? */ >> > >> > ret = devm_fw_attr_device_register(&galaxybook->platform->dev, >> > DRIVER_NAME, galaxybook, >> > &galaxybook_fw_attrs_group); >> > return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(ret); >> > } >> > >> > >> > Or in other words: >> > - I create my callback functions for "show" and "store" with a certain >> > named prefix and then use a macro to create the struct for this fw >> > attr that relies on that these functions exist (e.g. in the above >> > example the macro would create this "fw_attr_power_on_lid_open" fw >> > attr structure instance) -- note here it might need to be a macro per >> > type and/or to include the type-related stuff (including value >> > constraints/enumeration arrays/default values/etc) as parameters to >> > the macro, plus maybe I would want to provide some kind of context >> > parameter e.g. I would maybe want a pointer to my samsung_galaxybook >> > ideally somehow to get to come along?? (that might affect the >> > signature of my above examples of course! they were just a >> > quick-and-dirty example...), >> >> I agree and I believe this API has this capability. You can do this: >> >> static int power_on_lid_open_read(struct device *dev, long aux, const char **str) >> { >> ... >> } >> >> static int power_on_lid_open_write(struct device *dev, long aux, const char *str, size_t count) >> { >> ... >> } >> >> static ssize_t power_on_lid_open_prop_read(struct device *dev, long aux, enum fwat_property prop, >> char *buf) >> { >> ... >> } >> >> DEFINE_FWAT_OPS(power_on_lid_open, enumeration); >> >> ... >> >> static const struct fwat_attr_config * const galaxybook_fwat_config[] = { >> FWAT_CONFIG_AUX("power_on_lid_open", 0644, >> GB_ATTR_POWER_ON_LID_OPEN, >> &power_on_lid_open_ops, >> galaxybook_fwat_props, >> ARRAY_SIZE(galaxybook_fwat_props)), >> ... >> NULL >> } >> >> I.e, you can define ops for each "firmware attribute" (aka >> attribute_group). >> >> I feel the _props approach is currently a bit ugly though, and there is >> room for improvement in the boilerplate department. >> >> In the samsung-galaxybook case I decided to define a single struct >> fwat_attr_ops because I didn't want to make the diff too ugly. The >> *_acpi_{get,set}() functions that already exist are used in other parts >> of the driver, and I would have to change a few lines to make it work. >> >> BTW, you can pass a drvdata pointer to devm_fwat_device_register(). >> >> > - put all of my desired attrs together in a group where I can specify >> > their is_visible callback (just like you do with DEVICE_ATTRs), >> >> I decided to make this a single callback defined in struct >> fwat_dev_config. I went for this because I didn't like the idea of a >> different function for each attribute_group because it would just be a >> bunch of functions. >> >> > - and then register my fw attr device with my attribute_group (the >> > register function would take care of all the rest..) >> >> Do you think the struct fwat_attr_config * list achieves this? Could it >> be improved in some way? >> > > Hi again Kurt! Hi Joshua, > > In case it helps for me to restate that, from my perspective, I can > say that I was maybe not thinking too terribly deeply, more at a > shallow level about the higher level workflow/process for a developer. > For example, with device attributes, it is loosely like this: > > 1. create functions to handle the actual getting and setting logic > which can become my show/store callback(s) > > 2. use DEVICE_ATTR_RW or similar macro to create my > device_attribute(s) -- the macro will expect callback functions that > follow specific naming convention from step 1 > > 3. put one of more of my device_attribute(s) in a group (with optional > is_visible callback that also should be created) > > 4. my "device" is registered (through various mechanisms) while > passing in this attribute group as a parameter and everything is > created for me via the registration process > > And this process is roughly the same with device attributes, driver > attributes, bus attributes, hwmon sensor attributes etc etc. so it is > very "familiar" to me (not saying that is "good" or "bad", but it is > nice that once you learn this process, you can sort of more quickly > understand what is happening as you encounter these various types used > in different places). > > And from what I can tell as you mentioned in this patch, the process > for FW attributes would instead be something like .. ? > > 1. create functions or some way to handle the actual getting and > setting logic (but these are maybe not directly used as callbacks, but > instead used as one case within the logic of a more general > "show/store any property under the fw attr" callback) I don't really see how this steps differs from your dream scenario. If you want you could define read/write/read_prop for each "firmware attribute" (which is actually an attribute_group). The only difference is that you can (optionally) reuse these read/write/read_prop callbacks for multiple attribute groups. I think this is necessary if you want to define a bunch of attribute_groups with the same behavior without having to define a bunch of callbacks. > > 2. create (or use an existing "standard"?) enum with all properties > that should exist under my fw attr (display_name, current_value, > default_value, etc) You have to provide a list of sysfs attributes (not fw attributes!) you want for each of your "fw attributes" (attribute_groups). The enum is already provided. > > 3. create said general show/store callback function for all properties > within the fw attr (display_name, current_value, default_value, etc) > > 4. use DEFINE_FWAT_OPS macro to create some fw attr ops for a specific > fw attr (passing the name and type) Or multiple fw attributes. Users can decide. > > 5. build an array of fwat_attr_config whose entry is another struct, > but that struct can/will be built by another macro FWAT_CONFIG_AUX (or > similar) with all of its own properties for things like mode, the ops > from step 4, the properties enum from step 2, etc > > 6. put the attrs config in a new fwat_dev_config (with optional > is_visible callback that also should be created) > > 7. register the fw attr device with devm_fwat_device_register, passing > the fwat_dev_config and optional drvdata > > (of course I could have easily missed something obvious or gotten > something totally wrong here, but hopefully I have captured the gist > of it!) > > So I guess what I was trying to say was, the first process seems > easier and more intuitive for my simple mind to understand, whereas > the second process is a fair bit different from the others. Not that > one is necessarily better or worse than the other, but I guess I would > say that the first does feel more "simple" to me (though admittedly > these other attributes are more "simple" by design, of course!). This is not a minor detail :p In the first example you are creating single attributes. In the second process you are creating attribute_group(s) with a few "type" specific attributes, which are all optional too! (per ABI specification). > > What I tried to convey before was more that my own personal "dream > scenario" with this is that I as a developer could essentially still > follow the first process I mentioned from above (the one for other > device attrs) and then in a "happy path" scenario I would only need to > focus on callback functions for my getting and setting logic (show > and/or store callbacks) and not have to write ANY other code. > Basically like this: > > 1. create functions to handle the actual getting and setting logic > which can become my show/store callback(s) I think we can agree this API already accomplishes this? I might be misunderstanding something though. > > 2. use FW_BOOL_ATTR_RW(name, display_name, default_value) or similar IMO using that name would actually break intution. As a user I would expect that macro to create a sysfs attribute, not an attribute group. But I agree, display_name can/should be statically defined. I don't know about default_value though. Some drivers may obtain this value dynamically. > macro to create my fw_attribute(s) --> NOTE that because I chose > "bool" here (in that I used the "BOOL" variant of the macro) then I > will automatically get all of the standard attributes like > display_name, current_value, language_code (maybe even that it I agree, this could be the default behavior. I think most drivers already do this anyway, so it would eliminate some boilerplate code. > defaults to English unless I want to change it??), fixed choice of > possible_values (as the possible values are always the same for > booleans, I don't need to do anything with this part..) etc etc i.e. IMO possible_values (or any of the other props) should not be statically defined. I think this is too restrictive for drivers that probe for this data. > there are standard callback functions for these standard things like > display_name etc and the developer does not have to implement them > (and similar variants could exist for enum, string, and numeric fw > attrs that take care of min/max properties etc) I like this, it could work for drivers that do want this values statically defined. I'll think a way of accomplishing this without introducing too much complexity. > > 3. put one of more of my fw_attribute(s) in a group (with optional > is_visible callback that also should be created) > > 4. my fw attr "device" is registered and the group is passed and > everything is created for me via the registration process I think this API already accomplishes this two? What do you think? > > So *essentially* the process of this kind of fw attr implementation > would still be roughly the same as other attribute types, the code > would "look/feel/smell" the same as other attribute types, but I would > just need to pass a few extra parameters to the attribute macro in > order to set the display_name, default_value, etc properties that > would then get picked up by the "standard" show callback functions for > those attributes. The only thing I as an implementer really bother > with is the show/store functions and their actual getting/setting > logic on the actual device. I agree. This should be the workflow for drivers that want everything statically defined (such as samsung-galaxybook). > > And bonus if the "standard" logic also enforces the various > constraints (e.g. it should always block to store something that is > not one of my given possible_values, or enforce the various min/max > rules, etc) so that I do not even have to write any of the code for > that part, either! IMO APIs like this should enforce the least possible constraints and let drivers handle that appropiately. Also as I said before, some of these values are dynamically obtained. We can't assume they don't change, etc. > > Maybe I am thinking of this too simply? I have not as mentioned > thought through all of the implementation details of this, but my > first guess is at least for these standard types (enumeration, string, > boolean, etc) is that it does seem like it is *probably* possible?? > (not the extensions e.g. "authentication" etc -- needs more thinking > on that!) > > Does this make sense, or are we saying the same thing, or maybe > "talking past each other" as they say in Swedish? :) I think I understand your major concerns/suggestions. For v3 I'll do the following: - Make display name and language code statically defined - Create all attributes for a "fw attribute" type by default and offer an option to select just the ones you want - Offer a way to define these props statically (I have to think more about this though) - Improve documentation! Would you add something extra? -- ~ Kurt > > Thanks again and keep up the good fight! > > Joshua > >> > >> > And as sort of shown in the above example I certainly think it would >> > be nice if the naming convention lined up nicely with how the naming >> > convention works for the existing attribute stuff (e.g. DEVICE_ATTR_RW >> > vs DRIVER_ATTR_RW vs something like "FW_ATTR_RW" or "FIRMWARE_ATTR_RW" >> > seems like it falls into the same convention??) >> >> I can certainly add these macros, but they would be for "firmware >> attributes" defined entirely manually, using struct fwat_attribute. >> Actually I thought of adding these, but I didn't do it because I wanted >> to get something working at first and then add some of these extra >> helpers. >> >> > >> > Again I am not trying to "rock the boat" here, and I have not >> > necessarily *really* thought through all of the implications to the >> > existing fw attrs extensions and how they might be able to be >> > implemented with the above kind of example, ... I'm just taking a step >> > back and sharing my observations of the patch compared to how it >> > actually looks in the driver with the example vs how most of the other >> > existing attribute facilities have been designed. >> >> Thank you! As I said before, feedback is always welcome. >> >> I feel this API already accomplishes the requirements (which I agree >> with) you listed, albeit with some (maybe a bit too much) boilerplate. >> However your questions make me realise documentation is still lacking, I >> will make it better for the next revision. >> >> If you have more concrete areas of improvement, please let me know! I >> know there is room for improvement. Especially with naming. >> >> > >> > One more final thing which I always felt a little "off" about -- is it >> > not the case that other type of platforms might could use firmware >> > attributes as well? Or is this considered ONLY an x86 thing (e.g. that >> > "firmware" relates to "BIOS" or something) ? Because I always thought >> > it a bit strange that the header file was only local to >> > ./drivers/platform/x86/ instead of being part of the Linux headers >> > under ./include .. >> >> I agree! I'd like to know maintainers opinion on this. >> >> > >> > And in the same vein as that, is it not the case that other attributes >> > could benefit from this "typing" mechanism with constraints (e.g. >> > DEVICE_ATTR of type "enumeration" that only allows for one of a list >> > of values ? or a number with min/max value / a string with min/max >> > length etc etc??). I understand this poses an even bigger question and >> > much larger change (now we are really talking a HUGE impact! ;) ), but >> > my first guess is that it would probably be sort of nice to have these >> > types and this automatic constraints mechanism to be somewhat >> > universal across other type of attributes, otherwise every single >> > driver author/maintainer has to write their own manual code for the >> > same kinds of verifications in every function of every driver (e.g. >> > write an if statement to check the value in every store function of >> > every attribute they create, and then otherwise return -EINVAL or >> > similar... this kind of code exists over and over and over in the >> > kernel today!). >> >> Device attributes already have a lot of helpers for creating some >> common attributes, see [1]. >> >> I feel like every driver, subsystem, interface, etc. Has VERY different >> requirements for how sysfs attributes/groups should work. IMO there >> wouldn't be a lot of benefit in providing this infrastructure for other >> subsystems, either because they already have something in place or >> because it wouldn't exactly fit their needs. Kernel ABI is very diverse. >> >> These syfs interfaces are very old and there are good reasons why they >> are the way they are now. I don't think is a bad think to have to >> develop infrastructures for each subsystem! >> >> > >> > Anyway I hope this all was of some use, and, as mentioned, please feel >> > free to take all I have said here "with a pinch of salt" -- I would >> > definitely hope and encourage that others with longer service records >> > here could chime in regarding this! >> >> I hope so! >> >> > >> > Thanks again for the contribution, great work, and have a nice weekend! >> >> You too :) >> >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Joshua >> >> >> -- >> ~ Kurt >>