Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/5] platform/chrome: Introduce device tree hardware prober

[Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org>]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 3:24 PM Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 8:58 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:45 AM Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -61,6 +61,17 @@ config CHROMEOS_TBMC
> > >           To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the
> > >           module will be called chromeos_tbmc.
> > >
> > > +config CHROMEOS_OF_HW_PROBER
> > > +       bool "ChromeOS Device Tree Hardware Prober"
> >
> > Any reason that it can't be a module?
>
> No technical one. However if it's a module, the user has to manually load
> it. So I think it's more of a usability thing.

We could probably manually add module aliases. I thought about aliases
against the machine compatibles, but there doesn't seem to be a device
for it to trigger. Or target something common to ChromeOS devices like
the EC? It's really hacky though.

ChenYu

> OOTH I think this needs to be a module if I2C is built as a module.
> Somehow I had thought of it at one point but then it slipped my mind.
>
> > > +       depends on OF
> > > +       depends on I2C
> > > +       select OF_DYNAMIC
> > > +       default OF
> >
> > You probably don't want "default OF". This means that everyone will
> > automatically get this new driver enabled which is unlikely to be
> > right.
>
> I thought this whole section was guarded behind KCONFIG_CHROME_PLATFORMS.
> So if the user has CHROME_PLATFORMS enabled and has OF enabled, they
> likely need the prober.
>
> > > +static int chromeos_of_hw_prober_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > +{
> > > +       for (size_t i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(hw_prober_platforms); i++)
> > > +               if (of_machine_is_compatible(hw_prober_platforms[i].compatible)) {
> > > +                       int ret;
> > > +
> > > +                       ret = hw_prober_platforms[i].prober(&pdev->dev,
> > > +                                                           hw_prober_platforms[i].data);
> > > +                       if (ret)
> >
> > Should it only check for -EPROBE_DEFER here? ...and then maybe warn
> > for other cases and go through the loop? If there's some error
> > enabling the touchscreen I'd still want the trackpad to probe...
>
> Makes sense. However there's no extra information to give in the
> warning though.
>
> > > +                               return ret;
> > > +               }
> > > +
> > > +       return 0;
> >
> > Random thought: once we get here, the driver is useless / just wasting
> > memory. Any way to have it freed? ;-)
>
> I don't think there is a good way to do that, except maybe marking all
> the functions as __init? But that likely doesn't work in combination
> with deferred probing (say the i2c driver is a module).
>
> ChenYu