On Mon, 9 Mar 2026, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, March 9, 2026 2:00:31 PM CET Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Feb 2026, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" > > > > > > To facilitate subsequent conversion of the driver to using struct > > > platform_driver instead of struct acpi_driver, make it install its ACPI > > > notify handlers directly instead of using struct acpi_driver .notify() > > > callbacks. > > > > > > No intentional functional impact. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > --- > > > drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > > > index 1adce90ae3e6..cb13c06b8f35 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > > > @@ -502,8 +502,9 @@ static int fujitsu_backlight_register(struct acpi_device *device) > > > > > > /* Brightness notify */ > > > > > > -static void acpi_fujitsu_bl_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event) > > > +static void acpi_fujitsu_bl_notify(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *data) > > > { > > > + struct acpi_device *device = data; > > > struct fujitsu_bl *priv = acpi_driver_data(device); > > > int oldb, newb; > > > > > > @@ -558,7 +559,18 @@ static int acpi_fujitsu_bl_add(struct acpi_device *device) > > > if (ret) > > > return ret; > > > > > > - return fujitsu_backlight_register(device); > > > + ret = fujitsu_backlight_register(device); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > + > > > + return acpi_dev_install_notify_handler(device, ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY, > > > + acpi_fujitsu_bl_notify, device); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static void acpi_fujitsu_bl_remove(struct acpi_device *device) > > > +{ > > > + acpi_dev_remove_notify_handler(device, ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY, > > > + acpi_fujitsu_bl_notify); > > > } > > > > > > /* ACPI device for hotkey handling */ > > > @@ -941,8 +953,9 @@ static void acpi_fujitsu_laptop_release(struct acpi_device *device) > > > } > > > } > > > > > > -static void acpi_fujitsu_laptop_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event) > > > +static void acpi_fujitsu_laptop_notify(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *data) > > > { > > > + struct acpi_device *device = data; > > > struct fujitsu_laptop *priv = acpi_driver_data(device); > > > unsigned long flags; > > > int scancode, i = 0; > > > @@ -1056,6 +1069,11 @@ static int acpi_fujitsu_laptop_add(struct acpi_device *device) > > > if (ret) > > > goto err_free_fifo; > > > > > > + ret = acpi_dev_install_notify_handler(device, ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY, > > > + acpi_fujitsu_laptop_notify, device); > > > + if (ret) > > > + goto err_free_fifo; > > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > Is the rollback path still correct after adding this here? > > Why wouldn't it be? There's only kfifo_free() in it. So it's intentional to not add fujitsu_laptop_platform_remove() there? > > > + > > > ret = fujitsu_battery_charge_control_add(device); > > > if (ret < 0) > > > pr_warn("Unable to register battery charge control: %d\n", ret); > > > @@ -1074,6 +1092,9 @@ static void acpi_fujitsu_laptop_remove(struct acpi_device *device) > > > > > > fujitsu_battery_charge_control_remove(device); > > > > > > + acpi_dev_remove_notify_handler(device, ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY, > > > + acpi_fujitsu_laptop_notify); > > > + > > > fujitsu_laptop_platform_remove(device); > > > > > > kfifo_free(&priv->fifo); > > > @@ -1092,7 +1113,7 @@ static struct acpi_driver acpi_fujitsu_bl_driver = { > > > .ids = fujitsu_bl_device_ids, > > > .ops = { > > > .add = acpi_fujitsu_bl_add, > > > - .notify = acpi_fujitsu_bl_notify, > > > + .remove = acpi_fujitsu_bl_remove, > > > }, > > > }; > > > > > > @@ -1108,7 +1129,6 @@ static struct acpi_driver acpi_fujitsu_laptop_driver = { > > > .ops = { > > > .add = acpi_fujitsu_laptop_add, > > > .remove = acpi_fujitsu_laptop_remove, > > > - .notify = acpi_fujitsu_laptop_notify, > > > }, > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- i.