Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] platform/surface: aggregator_registry: Add Surface Pro 9 5G

["Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4160 bytes --]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024, Hans de Goede wrote:

> Hi Jérôme,
> 
> On 7-Oct-24 8:44 PM, Jérôme de Bretagne wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'm replying with Hans and Ilpo, who I initially forgot for this
> > patch, sorry about that.
> 
> No worries thank you for forwarding Maximilian's review.
> 
> > Le mar. 10 sept. 2024 à 23:29, Maximilian Luz
> > <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >>
> >> Looks good. Two very small nit-picks below, if this goes for a v3:
> > 
> > Atm I'm not planning for a v3 as Bjorn has applied the other v2
> > patches earlier today.
> > Feel free to include the 2 small suggestions when applying this patch maybe?
> > 
> >> On 9/9/24 12:35 AM, Jérôme de Bretagne wrote:
> >>> Add SAM client device nodes for the Surface Pro 9 5G, with the usual
> >>> battery/AC and HID nodes for keyboard and touchpad support.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jérôme de Bretagne <jerome.debretagne@gmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>   .../surface/surface_aggregator_registry.c       | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> >>>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/surface/surface_aggregator_registry.c b/drivers/platform/surface/surface_aggregator_registry.c
> >>> index 25c8aa2131d6..8b34d7e465c2 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/platform/surface/surface_aggregator_registry.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/platform/surface/surface_aggregator_registry.c
> >>> @@ -390,6 +390,21 @@ static const struct software_node *ssam_node_group_sp9[] = {
> >>>       NULL,
> >>>   };
> >>>
> >>> +/* Devices for Surface Pro 9 5G. */
> >>
> >> Would be nice if you could change the comment on the SP9 node group to
> >> "Surface Pro 9 (Intel/x86)" and the comment here to "Surface Pro 9 5G
> >> (ARM/QCOM)" or something along those lines to make things a bit more
> >> clear.
> >>
> >>> +static const struct software_node *ssam_node_group_sp9_5G[] = {
> >>
> >> (This is really just me being a bit obsessive:) It would be nice to have
> >> all-lowercase variable names (regarding the 5G).
> > 
> > :)
> > 
> >>> +     &ssam_node_root,
> >>> +     &ssam_node_hub_kip,
> >>> +     &ssam_node_bat_ac,
> >>> +     &ssam_node_bat_main,
> >>> +     &ssam_node_tmp_sensors,
> >>> +     &ssam_node_hid_kip_keyboard,
> >>> +     &ssam_node_hid_kip_penstash,
> >>> +     &ssam_node_hid_kip_touchpad,
> >>> +     &ssam_node_hid_kip_fwupd,
> >>> +     &ssam_node_hid_sam_sensors,
> >>> +     &ssam_node_kip_tablet_switch,
> >>> +     NULL,
> >>> +};
> >>>
> >>>   /* -- SSAM platform/meta-hub driver. ---------------------------------------- */
> >>>
> >>> @@ -462,6 +477,8 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id ssam_platform_hub_acpi_match[] = {
> >>>   MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, ssam_platform_hub_acpi_match);
> >>>
> >>>   static const struct of_device_id ssam_platform_hub_of_match[] __maybe_unused = {
> >>> +     /* Surface Pro 9 5G */
> >>> +     { .compatible = "microsoft,arcata", (void *)ssam_node_group_sp9_5G },
> >>>       /* Surface Laptop 7 */
> >>>       { .compatible = "microsoft,romulus13", (void *)ssam_node_group_sl7 },
> >>>       { .compatible = "microsoft,romulus15", (void *)ssam_node_group_sl7 },
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>
> > 
> > Thanks for your review and all the work about SSAM for Surface owners!
> 
> FWIW I agree with Maximilian's remarks and I would really like to
> see these applied to clearly differentiate the x86 and ARM versions.
> 
> Normally I would pick up a patch like this which just adds hw-ids as
> a fix for 6.12-rc# and squash in the suggested changes.
> 
> But looking at the test of the series this is more 6.13 material
> since the rest is landing in 6.13, right ?
> 
> Patches for linux-next / 6.13 are managed by Ilpo this cycle.
> 
> So I'll leave it up to Ilpo if he will squash in the suggested changes
> or if he wants a new version (of just this patch, no need for a v3
> of the already applied patches).

Hi all,

I've now applied patch 3 to review-ilpo branch in pdx86 repo.

I'd appreciate if somebody confirms I got those comment edits right.

-- 
 i.