Re: [RFC v1 2/2] platform/x86/amd: Add AMD DPTCi driver

["Mario Limonciello (AMD) (kernel.org)" <superm1@kernel.org>]

+ Sasha

On 3/3/2026 2:40 PM, Antheas Kapenekakis wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 at 21:10, Mario Limonciello (AMD) (kernel.org)
> <superm1@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> I'll preface this by saying - I don't have a problem with using an AI to
>> help write a driver, but please disclose that it was done and that in
>> this case even you haven't closely audited the results.
>>
>> I personally would never submit something generated by an LLM that I
>> didn't audit and add a S-o-b tag to it (asserting I am willing to stand
>> by the code).
>>
>> I'm glad that I found out it was AI written before I started to review
>> the code, I would have had a lot more candid comments for you.
>>
>> There is a lot of weird stuff in this driver that I'm not going to
>> comment on and nitpick, but I'll leave a few broad strokes things.
> 
> Of course, to that end, feel free to skip a full review until I get to
> properly rewriting it.
> 
> What is the current stance on Co-bys for that? I'm trying to follow
> the discussion but I missed the news. I can lint it properly next
> time.
> 
>  From my perspective, pouring a month into a driver like this without
> having a firm commitment that it will go somewhere is a bit hard to
> stomach.

Sure.

I don't need a dedicated tag telling me what tool you wrote it with.  I 
don't care if it was Opus, Gemini or Qwen3.5.  They all can make 
mistakes that need to be audited.

The most important part to me (or any reviewer) is a signal that I 
shouldn't invest more effort reviewing this than you did writing it and 
reviewing it.

My feeling on this kind of RFC this is the most appropriate tag:

Not-signed-off-by: Foo Bar <foo@bar.com>

> This driver does not have a concept of platform profile. The devices
> by definition do not have presets and users of handhelds are
> accustomed to a ppt slider (where userspace interpolates for fppt/sppt
> or sets them the same).
> 
> We could layer a platform profile on top of it by extending the driver
> more and adding suggested preselected profiles for low-power,
> balanced, and performance. Then custom unlocks the sliders. This is
> the approach I do currently when I hook to the ppd dbus protocol and
> it works quite well.
> 
> As for custom profile, it unlocks the firmware attributes in other
> drivers. The only difference in this one is the naming of the
> attributes.

I feel for this to be viable in mainline kernel it should be easy to use 
by default with platform profile support.

>> IMV - NO WAY.
>>
>> Device matches are mandatory.  I'm not letting a driver like this bind
>> to any random piece of hardware in the wild.  The thermal design of each
>> system is different.  Each system needs it's own quirks/table.
> 
> I need to update the comments but this is gated behind the kconfig
> flag. In order for SoC/unbound to become available that needs to be
> on. If it is not, as you see below the driver ejects.

I don't even want a Kconfig flag to allow it to bind to something 
outside of the quirk list for any of this.  if we don't have 
authoritative values to use we shouldn't have anything binding.

If you need to add support for a new system then add a quirk for it.