On Tue, 16 Dec 2025, Krishna Chomal wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 04:25:17PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > Thank you for the patch but it looks this approach to add mappings using
> > if()s to handle variations should be replaced with something better.
> 
> Thank you for the feedback. I agree that stacking if/else statements for
> board variations is not a scalable idea.
> 
> For V2, I plan to refactor this driver to use DMI system ID table's
> driver_data field to handle the profile mapping (at least for
> victus_s_thermal_profile_boards in this patch).
> 
> The implementation will introduce a `struct thermal_profile_params` to
> hold the specific thermal values (Performance/Balanced/Low-Power). Then
> I can convert victus_s_thermal_profile_boards from a simple string
> array to a `struct dmi_system_id[]` array, where each entry maps a DMI
> Board Name to its specific thermal_profile_params via driver_data.
> 
> Then platform_profile_victus_s_set_ec can simply retrieve the correct
> parameters via dmi_first_match(), removing the need for nested if()s.
>
> I feel this restructuring makes the code much cleaner and makes the
> thermal profile choice for new boards explicit. Does this plan look like
> the right direction for V2?

Yes, something along those lines.

There's also one similar attempt pending in the patchwork, so this 
hopefully can solve that case as well:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/platform-driver-x86/patch/20250731213529.27378-1-noahpro@gmail.com/ 

Thanks for taking up this task. :-)

-- 
 i.