From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.tuxedocomputers.com (mail.tuxedocomputers.com [157.90.84.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C94015442C; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 18:40:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=157.90.84.7 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764009650; cv=none; b=lEiO9UmJli0AEQeHXjJNjR1sTmIL/77XmkU16ZMov78XHD18tZiO0P8W7d53iJorlMeHL91p3qUGQiCTcda4lVsrPihIWIkth86qcztDPRCrADchtMxRh96lN11i7hN+Xs9ioNw+ptMZQsFsbO2PhNNaTkKPK8INN08OZoemQ/M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764009650; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Rp2zFr5deJ5Ksq+5S8eCwvmKbFxqN4regQbgi14qcao=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=T+kofG1rHn3EkZil8LWGZqdHFwZcgYa4GD/ip2F2tyL+upJV7GT9Az9He12mrQ5E6KJDA58ajt3eMcS/5SZMT8eSKjD3LAssRdq0qayrak0wA0tjjlqoBQ7+41/B0XjUC9EBU36g0zKgmR1ePDuLKR2yWEhhCrngZbW/Lv90fhA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=tuxedocomputers.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tuxedocomputers.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tuxedocomputers.com header.i=@tuxedocomputers.com header.b=ouHm/vJT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=157.90.84.7 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=tuxedocomputers.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tuxedocomputers.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tuxedocomputers.com header.i=@tuxedocomputers.com header.b="ouHm/vJT" Received: from [192.168.42.116] (pd9e597c7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.229.151.199]) (Authenticated sender: wse@tuxedocomputers.com) by mail.tuxedocomputers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 148B22FC004D; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 19:40:45 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuxedocomputers.com; s=default; t=1764009645; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ZWhdjfbAdbUDmdLNikJjreZbqzsV6+txJDlCbxjGCyc=; b=ouHm/vJTQPtYvcnXqBGC78nscTMOgmZYPk1+NIoIFazbZAe/j3gdjXrSWUz85nHVgSD7oD TtuyjecUhGh+EXm2n5LQFctgkHDIF9SXOCMyNtgkkNzNXILBxL9gdQmXlprGmU1XkaOOsc t2W+rAaPApTQqa+zojK3JVjjgvqUaH4= Authentication-Results: mail.tuxedocomputers.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=wse@tuxedocomputers.com smtp.mailfrom=wse@tuxedocomputers.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 19:40:44 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] platform/x86/uniwill: Handle more WMI events required for TUXEDO devices To: Armin Wolf , hansg@kernel.org, ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20251117132530.32460-1-wse@tuxedocomputers.com> <20251117132530.32460-3-wse@tuxedocomputers.com> <29b24831-92d4-47c6-8daf-7d1879951d43@tuxedocomputers.com> <7cd7081f-b138-4548-a9fb-5c4d5165b036@gmx.de> <7276b961-8649-4bc0-87f7-a1f06cd4f3ad@tuxedocomputers.com> <5b554128-7466-4b34-9020-c0c39572f100@gmx.de> <3c075220-79f3-4dff-a760-6fe065147793@tuxedocomputers.com> <2d5d88fe-cd54-4311-b5cd-b1c435ff973d@gmx.de> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Werner Sembach In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Am 20.11.25 um 01:53 schrieb Armin Wolf: > [snip] > > Anyway, i attached the patch with the device descriptor infrastructure. The > callback called during probe cannot modify > the feature bitmap anymore, but i suggest that you simply set the limit for > cTGP to zero. The code responsible for > initializing cTGP support can then check if the cTGP limit is zero and return > early. Looked into it: whats the reason for the "__ro_after_init" in "static struct uniwill_device_descriptor device_descriptor __ro_after_init;"? The thing Ilpo wrote sounded like just .driver_data itself should be read only, but as soon as it has an indirection, like here being copied over to a static variable, read/write is ok. Also: Why not just copy the device_descriptor over to uniwill_data instead of a static variable? And do I get that correctly: All you can do during the init callback is doing more sophisticated DMI matching? Best regards, Werner > [snip]