Re: [External] Re: [PATCH 0/2] IdeaPad platform profile support

[Mark Pearson <markpearson@lenovo.com>]

On 04/01/2021 15:58, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 1/4/21 9:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 3:36 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> On 1/1/21 1:56 PM, Jiaxun Yang wrote:
>>>> Tested on Lenovo Yoga-14SARE Chinese Edition.
>>>> 
<snip>
> 
>> Also, on a somewhat related note, I'm afraid that it may not be a 
>> good idea to push this series for 5.11-rc in the face of recent 
>> objections against new material going in after the merge window.
> 
> That is fine with me, since this did not make rc1 (nor rc2) I'm not 
> entirely comfortable with sending out a late pull-req for the pdx86 
> side of this either, so lets postpone this to 5.12 (sorry Mark).
It is what it is.

> 
> Rafael, once we have the discussion with the passing a pointer back 
> to the drivers data thing resolved (and a patch merged for that if we
> go that route) can you provide me with an immutable branch to merge
> into pdx86/for-next so that I can then merge the pdx86 bits on top ?
> 
> Note this does not need to be done right now around say rc4 would be
>  fine, so that we have some time for the patches currently in 
> bleeding-edge to settle a bit.
> 
Just for my understanding of what happens next....please correct me if I
have anything wrong:

 - platform_profile gets pulled from ACPI for 5.11

 - platform_profile gets updated to add this data/pointer implementation
and goes into 5.12. Jiaxun, let me know if you're happy with following
up on that based on Hans suggestions, If you are pushed for time let me
know and I'll happily help out/implement/test as required. I sadly don't
have any ideapads but very happy to support your efforts any way I can.

 - Can we get the x86 portion done at the same time or does that end up
going to 5.13? I had been looking at the ideapad_laptop.c patch and have
some concerns there as Jiaxun's patch is essentially a duplicate of what
I implemented in thinkpad_acpi.c which doesn't seem to be ideal
(especially as there is a V6 version of DYTC coming out this year). I
haven't had time to look at code to consider better alternatives though...

Mark