[RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver

[RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver

[Andy Shevchenko]

Remove code duplication by converting driver to pure ACPI one.

Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
- not tested
 drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c | 93 +++++++++------------------------------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c
index b703d6f5b099..7201effdf37a 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c
@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id intel_vbtn_ids[] = {
 	{"INT33D6", 0},
 	{"", 0},
 };
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, intel_vbtn_ids);
 
 /* In theory, these are HID usages. */
 static const struct key_entry intel_vbtn_keymap[] = {
@@ -47,9 +48,9 @@ struct intel_vbtn_priv {
 	bool wakeup_mode;
 };
 
-static int intel_vbtn_input_setup(struct platform_device *device)
+static int intel_vbtn_input_setup(struct acpi_device *device)
 {
-	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&device->dev);
+	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = acpi_driver_data(device);
 	int ret;
 
 	priv->input_dev = devm_input_allocate_device(&device->dev);
@@ -60,17 +61,15 @@ static int intel_vbtn_input_setup(struct platform_device *device)
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
-	priv->input_dev->dev.parent = &device->dev;
 	priv->input_dev->name = "Intel Virtual Button driver";
 	priv->input_dev->id.bustype = BUS_HOST;
 
 	return input_register_device(priv->input_dev);
 }
 
-static void notify_handler(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *context)
+static void notify_handler(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
 {
-	struct platform_device *device = context;
-	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&device->dev);
+	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = acpi_driver_data(device);
 	unsigned int val = !(event & 1); /* Even=press, Odd=release */
 	const struct key_entry *ke_rel;
 	bool autorelease;
@@ -97,10 +96,10 @@ static void notify_handler(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *context)
 	dev_dbg(&device->dev, "unknown event index 0x%x\n", event);
 }
 
-static int intel_vbtn_probe(struct platform_device *device)
+static int intel_vbtn_add(struct acpi_device *device)
 {
 	struct acpi_buffer vgbs_output = { ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL };
-	acpi_handle handle = ACPI_HANDLE(&device->dev);
+	acpi_handle handle = acpi_device_handle(device);
 	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv;
 	acpi_status status;
 	int err;
@@ -114,11 +113,11 @@ static int intel_vbtn_probe(struct platform_device *device)
 	priv = devm_kzalloc(&device->dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!priv)
 		return -ENOMEM;
-	dev_set_drvdata(&device->dev, priv);
+	device->driver_data = priv;
 
 	err = intel_vbtn_input_setup(device);
 	if (err) {
-		pr_err("Failed to setup Intel Virtual Button\n");
+		dev_warn(&device->dev, "Failed to setup Intel Virtual Button\n");
 		return err;
 	}
 
@@ -139,33 +138,14 @@ static int intel_vbtn_probe(struct platform_device *device)
 
 	kfree(vgbs_output.pointer);
 
-	status = acpi_install_notify_handler(handle,
-					     ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY,
-					     notify_handler,
-					     device);
-	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
-		return -EBUSY;
-
 	device_init_wakeup(&device->dev, true);
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int intel_vbtn_remove(struct platform_device *device)
-{
-	acpi_handle handle = ACPI_HANDLE(&device->dev);
-
-	acpi_remove_notify_handler(handle, ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY, notify_handler);
-
-	/*
-	 * Even if we failed to shut off the event stream, we can still
-	 * safely detach from the device.
-	 */
-	return 0;
-}
-
 static int intel_vbtn_pm_prepare(struct device *dev)
 {
-	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+	struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
+	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = acpi_driver_data(device);
 
 	priv->wakeup_mode = true;
 	return 0;
@@ -173,7 +153,8 @@ static int intel_vbtn_pm_prepare(struct device *dev)
 
 static int intel_vbtn_pm_resume(struct device *dev)
 {
-	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+	struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
+	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = acpi_driver_data(device);
 
 	priv->wakeup_mode = false;
 	return 0;
@@ -186,46 +167,16 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops intel_vbtn_pm_ops = {
 	.thaw = intel_vbtn_pm_resume,
 };
 
-static struct platform_driver intel_vbtn_pl_driver = {
+static struct acpi_driver intel_vbtn_driver = {
+	.name = "intel-vbtn",
+	.class = ACPI_BUTTON_CLASS,
+	.ids = intel_vbtn_ids,
+	.ops = {
+		.add = intel_vbtn_add,
+		.notify = notify_handler,
+	},
 	.driver = {
-		.name = "intel-vbtn",
-		.acpi_match_table = intel_vbtn_ids,
 		.pm = &intel_vbtn_pm_ops,
 	},
-	.probe = intel_vbtn_probe,
-	.remove = intel_vbtn_remove,
 };
-MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, intel_vbtn_ids);
-
-static acpi_status __init
-check_acpi_dev(acpi_handle handle, u32 lvl, void *context, void **rv)
-{
-	const struct acpi_device_id *ids = context;
-	struct acpi_device *dev;
-
-	if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &dev) != 0)
-		return AE_OK;
-
-	if (acpi_match_device_ids(dev, ids) == 0)
-		if (acpi_create_platform_device(dev, NULL))
-			dev_info(&dev->dev,
-				 "intel-vbtn: created platform device\n");
-
-	return AE_OK;
-}
-
-static int __init intel_vbtn_init(void)
-{
-	acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE, ACPI_ROOT_OBJECT,
-			    ACPI_UINT32_MAX, check_acpi_dev, NULL,
-			    (void *)intel_vbtn_ids, NULL);
-
-	return platform_driver_register(&intel_vbtn_pl_driver);
-}
-module_init(intel_vbtn_init);
-
-static void __exit intel_vbtn_exit(void)
-{
-	platform_driver_unregister(&intel_vbtn_pl_driver);
-}
-module_exit(intel_vbtn_exit);
+module_acpi_driver(intel_vbtn_driver);
-- 
2.15.1

Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver

[Darren Hart]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 08:26:14PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Remove code duplication by converting driver to pure ACPI one.

+Rafael

I don't see any reason *not* to do this, it seems the acpi driver model provides
some of the boilerplate stuff we were doing manually before as a platform
device. I'm scratching my head wondering why we did this as a platform-driver in
the first place now...

> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> - not tested
>  drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c | 93 +++++++++------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c
> index b703d6f5b099..7201effdf37a 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id intel_vbtn_ids[] = {
>  	{"INT33D6", 0},
>  	{"", 0},
>  };
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, intel_vbtn_ids);
>  
>  /* In theory, these are HID usages. */
>  static const struct key_entry intel_vbtn_keymap[] = {
> @@ -47,9 +48,9 @@ struct intel_vbtn_priv {
>  	bool wakeup_mode;
>  };
>  
> -static int intel_vbtn_input_setup(struct platform_device *device)
> +static int intel_vbtn_input_setup(struct acpi_device *device)
>  {
> -	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&device->dev);
> +	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = acpi_driver_data(device);
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	priv->input_dev = devm_input_allocate_device(&device->dev);
> @@ -60,17 +61,15 @@ static int intel_vbtn_input_setup(struct platform_device *device)
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	priv->input_dev->dev.parent = &device->dev;
>  	priv->input_dev->name = "Intel Virtual Button driver";
>  	priv->input_dev->id.bustype = BUS_HOST;
>  
>  	return input_register_device(priv->input_dev);
>  }
>  
> -static void notify_handler(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *context)
> +static void notify_handler(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
>  {
> -	struct platform_device *device = context;
> -	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&device->dev);
> +	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = acpi_driver_data(device);
>  	unsigned int val = !(event & 1); /* Even=press, Odd=release */
>  	const struct key_entry *ke_rel;
>  	bool autorelease;
> @@ -97,10 +96,10 @@ static void notify_handler(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *context)
>  	dev_dbg(&device->dev, "unknown event index 0x%x\n", event);
>  }
>  
> -static int intel_vbtn_probe(struct platform_device *device)
> +static int intel_vbtn_add(struct acpi_device *device)
>  {
>  	struct acpi_buffer vgbs_output = { ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL };
> -	acpi_handle handle = ACPI_HANDLE(&device->dev);
> +	acpi_handle handle = acpi_device_handle(device);
>  	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv;
>  	acpi_status status;
>  	int err;
> @@ -114,11 +113,11 @@ static int intel_vbtn_probe(struct platform_device *device)
>  	priv = devm_kzalloc(&device->dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!priv)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
> -	dev_set_drvdata(&device->dev, priv);
> +	device->driver_data = priv;
>  
>  	err = intel_vbtn_input_setup(device);
>  	if (err) {
> -		pr_err("Failed to setup Intel Virtual Button\n");
> +		dev_warn(&device->dev, "Failed to setup Intel Virtual Button\n");
>  		return err;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -139,33 +138,14 @@ static int intel_vbtn_probe(struct platform_device *device)
>  
>  	kfree(vgbs_output.pointer);
>  
> -	status = acpi_install_notify_handler(handle,
> -					     ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY,
> -					     notify_handler,
> -					     device);
> -	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> -		return -EBUSY;
> -
>  	device_init_wakeup(&device->dev, true);
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int intel_vbtn_remove(struct platform_device *device)
> -{
> -	acpi_handle handle = ACPI_HANDLE(&device->dev);
> -
> -	acpi_remove_notify_handler(handle, ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY, notify_handler);
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Even if we failed to shut off the event stream, we can still
> -	 * safely detach from the device.
> -	 */
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
>  static int intel_vbtn_pm_prepare(struct device *dev)
>  {
> -	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +	struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> +	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = acpi_driver_data(device);
>  
>  	priv->wakeup_mode = true;
>  	return 0;
> @@ -173,7 +153,8 @@ static int intel_vbtn_pm_prepare(struct device *dev)
>  
>  static int intel_vbtn_pm_resume(struct device *dev)
>  {
> -	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +	struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> +	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = acpi_driver_data(device);
>  
>  	priv->wakeup_mode = false;
>  	return 0;
> @@ -186,46 +167,16 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops intel_vbtn_pm_ops = {
>  	.thaw = intel_vbtn_pm_resume,
>  };
>  
> -static struct platform_driver intel_vbtn_pl_driver = {
> +static struct acpi_driver intel_vbtn_driver = {
> +	.name = "intel-vbtn",
> +	.class = ACPI_BUTTON_CLASS,
> +	.ids = intel_vbtn_ids,
> +	.ops = {
> +		.add = intel_vbtn_add,
> +		.notify = notify_handler,
> +	},
>  	.driver = {
> -		.name = "intel-vbtn",
> -		.acpi_match_table = intel_vbtn_ids,
>  		.pm = &intel_vbtn_pm_ops,
>  	},
> -	.probe = intel_vbtn_probe,
> -	.remove = intel_vbtn_remove,
>  };
> -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, intel_vbtn_ids);
> -
> -static acpi_status __init
> -check_acpi_dev(acpi_handle handle, u32 lvl, void *context, void **rv)
> -{
> -	const struct acpi_device_id *ids = context;
> -	struct acpi_device *dev;
> -
> -	if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &dev) != 0)
> -		return AE_OK;
> -
> -	if (acpi_match_device_ids(dev, ids) == 0)
> -		if (acpi_create_platform_device(dev, NULL))
> -			dev_info(&dev->dev,
> -				 "intel-vbtn: created platform device\n");
> -
> -	return AE_OK;
> -}
> -
> -static int __init intel_vbtn_init(void)
> -{
> -	acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE, ACPI_ROOT_OBJECT,
> -			    ACPI_UINT32_MAX, check_acpi_dev, NULL,
> -			    (void *)intel_vbtn_ids, NULL);
> -
> -	return platform_driver_register(&intel_vbtn_pl_driver);
> -}
> -module_init(intel_vbtn_init);
> -
> -static void __exit intel_vbtn_exit(void)
> -{
> -	platform_driver_unregister(&intel_vbtn_pl_driver);
> -}
> -module_exit(intel_vbtn_exit);
> +module_acpi_driver(intel_vbtn_driver);
> -- 
> 2.15.1
> 
> 

-- 
Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center

Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 13:37 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 08:26:14PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Remove code duplication by converting driver to pure ACPI one.
> 

I have fixed couple issues, but...

> +Rafael
> 
> I don't see any reason *not* to do this, it seems the acpi driver
> model provides
> some of the boilerplate stuff we were doing manually before as a
> platform
> device. I'm scratching my head wondering why we did this as a
> platform-driver in
> the first place now...

...I still keep in my review queue in a hope that someone can actually
test this on real hardware.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy

RE: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver

[Mario.Limonciello]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:platform-driver-x86-
> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Andy Shevchenko
> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 10:18 AM
> To: Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>
> Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org; AceLan Kao
> <acelan.kao@canonical.com>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> pali.rohar@gmail.com; Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@Dell.com>; Rafael
> Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver
> 
> On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 13:37 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 08:26:14PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Remove code duplication by converting driver to pure ACPI one.
> >
> 
> I have fixed couple issues, but...
> 
> > +Rafael
> >
> > I don't see any reason *not* to do this, it seems the acpi driver
> > model provides
> > some of the boilerplate stuff we were doing manually before as a
> > platform
> > device. I'm scratching my head wondering why we did this as a
> > platform-driver in
> > the first place now...
> 
> ...I still keep in my review queue in a hope that someone can actually
> test this on real hardware.
> 
> --
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> Intel Finland Oy

Andy,

I'm pretty sure XPS 9365 can test this.  I was going to try but 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10194503/ was not
able to compile on top of platform-x86/for-next.
That was the only one I saw at patchwork.

drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c:172:11: error: ‘ACPI_BUTTON_CLASS’ undeclared here (not in a function)
  .class = ACPI_BUTTON_CLASS,
           ^
drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c:178:2: error: unknown field ‘driver’ specified in initializer
  .driver = {
  ^
scripts/Makefile.build:316: recipe for target 'drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.o' failed
make[5]: *** [drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.o] Error 1

is that different than the one in your review queue?

Thanks,

RE: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver

[Mario.Limonciello]

>Yeah, that's fixed in the branch.
>P.S. Apologies for top-posting, wrote from phone in order to not waste time
Andy,

I tested your review branch on XPS 9365 which uses power button through 
intel-vbtn.  I confirmed it worked properly both with usage in OS and during S2I.

Thanks,

Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 11:37:54 PM CET Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Yeah, that's fixed in the branch.
> 
> P.S. Apologies for top-posting, wrote from phone in order to not waste time
> 
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2018, <Mario.Limonciello@dell.com> wrote:
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:
> > platform-driver-x86-
> > > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Andy Shevchenko
> > > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 10:18 AM
> > > To: Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>
> > > Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org; AceLan Kao
> > > <acelan.kao@canonical.com>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> > > pali.rohar@gmail.com; Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@Dell.com>;
> > Rafael
> > > Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> > > Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure
> > ACPI driver
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 13:37 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 08:26:14PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > Remove code duplication by converting driver to pure ACPI one.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have fixed couple issues, but...
> > >
> > > > +Rafael
> > > >
> > > > I don't see any reason *not* to do this, it seems the acpi driver
> > > > model provides
> > > > some of the boilerplate stuff we were doing manually before as a
> > > > platform
> > > > device. I'm scratching my head wondering why we did this as a
> > > > platform-driver in
> > > > the first place now...

It looks like I have overlooked this.

Generally speaking, binding drivers to ACPI device objects is a bad idea,
because it is sort of what binding drivers to struct device_node in OF would
be.  It was an unfortunate design choice for struct acpi_device to be based
on struct device in the first place, but undoing it is not worth the effort
and pain.

In some instances (PCI, PNP, I2C, SPI etc) there is a device object to bind a
driver to already and the corresponding struct acpi_device is the "companion"
of it.  In those cases binding a driver to the struct acpi_device itself
clearly doesn't make sense.

In the cases like the $subject one it is less clear, but for symmetry and
general confusion avoidance it is better to have a struct device representing
the "physical" thing *in* *addition* to the struct acpi_device and use the
latter as the "companion" of it.  That's why we have the platform device in
this particular case.

Please drop this patch, it doesn't go in the right direction IMO.

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 10:37:26 PM CET Darren Hart wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 08:26:14PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Remove code duplication by converting driver to pure ACPI one.
> 
> +Rafael
> 
> I don't see any reason *not* to do this, it seems the acpi driver model provides
> some of the boilerplate stuff we were doing manually before as a platform
> device. I'm scratching my head wondering why we did this as a platform-driver in
> the first place now...

We talked about it quite a bit before, I guess it needs to be documented
somewhere, finally. :-)

If you have a PCI device, you have a struct pci_dev representing it and then
there may be a "companion" struct acpi_device associated with it.  In that
case you clearly bind a driver to the struct pci_dev.

This case is really analogous except that the platform bus type is sort of
"fake" and it doesn't appear to be necessary to use it.

Thanks,
Rafael


> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > - not tested
> >  drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c | 93 +++++++++------------------------------
> >  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c
> > index b703d6f5b099..7201effdf37a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c
> > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id intel_vbtn_ids[] = {
> >  	{"INT33D6", 0},
> >  	{"", 0},
> >  };
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, intel_vbtn_ids);
> >  
> >  /* In theory, these are HID usages. */
> >  static const struct key_entry intel_vbtn_keymap[] = {
> > @@ -47,9 +48,9 @@ struct intel_vbtn_priv {
> >  	bool wakeup_mode;
> >  };
> >  
> > -static int intel_vbtn_input_setup(struct platform_device *device)
> > +static int intel_vbtn_input_setup(struct acpi_device *device)
> >  {
> > -	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&device->dev);
> > +	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = acpi_driver_data(device);
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> >  	priv->input_dev = devm_input_allocate_device(&device->dev);
> > @@ -60,17 +61,15 @@ static int intel_vbtn_input_setup(struct platform_device *device)
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		return ret;
> >  
> > -	priv->input_dev->dev.parent = &device->dev;
> >  	priv->input_dev->name = "Intel Virtual Button driver";
> >  	priv->input_dev->id.bustype = BUS_HOST;
> >  
> >  	return input_register_device(priv->input_dev);
> >  }
> >  
> > -static void notify_handler(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *context)
> > +static void notify_handler(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
> >  {
> > -	struct platform_device *device = context;
> > -	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&device->dev);
> > +	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = acpi_driver_data(device);
> >  	unsigned int val = !(event & 1); /* Even=press, Odd=release */
> >  	const struct key_entry *ke_rel;
> >  	bool autorelease;
> > @@ -97,10 +96,10 @@ static void notify_handler(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *context)
> >  	dev_dbg(&device->dev, "unknown event index 0x%x\n", event);
> >  }
> >  
> > -static int intel_vbtn_probe(struct platform_device *device)
> > +static int intel_vbtn_add(struct acpi_device *device)
> >  {
> >  	struct acpi_buffer vgbs_output = { ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL };
> > -	acpi_handle handle = ACPI_HANDLE(&device->dev);
> > +	acpi_handle handle = acpi_device_handle(device);
> >  	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv;
> >  	acpi_status status;
> >  	int err;
> > @@ -114,11 +113,11 @@ static int intel_vbtn_probe(struct platform_device *device)
> >  	priv = devm_kzalloc(&device->dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (!priv)
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> > -	dev_set_drvdata(&device->dev, priv);
> > +	device->driver_data = priv;
> >  
> >  	err = intel_vbtn_input_setup(device);
> >  	if (err) {
> > -		pr_err("Failed to setup Intel Virtual Button\n");
> > +		dev_warn(&device->dev, "Failed to setup Intel Virtual Button\n");
> >  		return err;
> >  	}
> >  
> > @@ -139,33 +138,14 @@ static int intel_vbtn_probe(struct platform_device *device)
> >  
> >  	kfree(vgbs_output.pointer);
> >  
> > -	status = acpi_install_notify_handler(handle,
> > -					     ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY,
> > -					     notify_handler,
> > -					     device);
> > -	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> > -		return -EBUSY;
> > -
> >  	device_init_wakeup(&device->dev, true);
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static int intel_vbtn_remove(struct platform_device *device)
> > -{
> > -	acpi_handle handle = ACPI_HANDLE(&device->dev);
> > -
> > -	acpi_remove_notify_handler(handle, ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY, notify_handler);
> > -
> > -	/*
> > -	 * Even if we failed to shut off the event stream, we can still
> > -	 * safely detach from the device.
> > -	 */
> > -	return 0;
> > -}
> > -
> >  static int intel_vbtn_pm_prepare(struct device *dev)
> >  {
> > -	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > +	struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> > +	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = acpi_driver_data(device);
> >  
> >  	priv->wakeup_mode = true;
> >  	return 0;
> > @@ -173,7 +153,8 @@ static int intel_vbtn_pm_prepare(struct device *dev)
> >  
> >  static int intel_vbtn_pm_resume(struct device *dev)
> >  {
> > -	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > +	struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> > +	struct intel_vbtn_priv *priv = acpi_driver_data(device);
> >  
> >  	priv->wakeup_mode = false;
> >  	return 0;
> > @@ -186,46 +167,16 @@ static const struct dev_pm_ops intel_vbtn_pm_ops = {
> >  	.thaw = intel_vbtn_pm_resume,
> >  };
> >  
> > -static struct platform_driver intel_vbtn_pl_driver = {
> > +static struct acpi_driver intel_vbtn_driver = {
> > +	.name = "intel-vbtn",
> > +	.class = ACPI_BUTTON_CLASS,
> > +	.ids = intel_vbtn_ids,
> > +	.ops = {
> > +		.add = intel_vbtn_add,
> > +		.notify = notify_handler,
> > +	},
> >  	.driver = {
> > -		.name = "intel-vbtn",
> > -		.acpi_match_table = intel_vbtn_ids,
> >  		.pm = &intel_vbtn_pm_ops,
> >  	},
> > -	.probe = intel_vbtn_probe,
> > -	.remove = intel_vbtn_remove,
> >  };
> > -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, intel_vbtn_ids);
> > -
> > -static acpi_status __init
> > -check_acpi_dev(acpi_handle handle, u32 lvl, void *context, void **rv)
> > -{
> > -	const struct acpi_device_id *ids = context;
> > -	struct acpi_device *dev;
> > -
> > -	if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &dev) != 0)
> > -		return AE_OK;
> > -
> > -	if (acpi_match_device_ids(dev, ids) == 0)
> > -		if (acpi_create_platform_device(dev, NULL))
> > -			dev_info(&dev->dev,
> > -				 "intel-vbtn: created platform device\n");
> > -
> > -	return AE_OK;
> > -}
> > -
> > -static int __init intel_vbtn_init(void)
> > -{
> > -	acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_DEVICE, ACPI_ROOT_OBJECT,
> > -			    ACPI_UINT32_MAX, check_acpi_dev, NULL,
> > -			    (void *)intel_vbtn_ids, NULL);
> > -
> > -	return platform_driver_register(&intel_vbtn_pl_driver);
> > -}
> > -module_init(intel_vbtn_init);
> > -
> > -static void __exit intel_vbtn_exit(void)
> > -{
> > -	platform_driver_unregister(&intel_vbtn_pl_driver);
> > -}
> > -module_exit(intel_vbtn_exit);
> > +module_acpi_driver(intel_vbtn_driver);
> 
> 

Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 10:31:01 AM CET Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 11:37:54 PM CET Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Yeah, that's fixed in the branch.
> > 
> > P.S. Apologies for top-posting, wrote from phone in order to not waste time
> > 
> > On Tuesday, February 6, 2018, <Mario.Limonciello@dell.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:
> > > platform-driver-x86-
> > > > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Andy Shevchenko
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 10:18 AM
> > > > To: Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>
> > > > Cc: platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org; AceLan Kao
> > > > <acelan.kao@canonical.com>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> > > > pali.rohar@gmail.com; Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@Dell.com>;
> > > Rafael
> > > > Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> > > > Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure
> > > ACPI driver
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 13:37 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 08:26:14PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > Remove code duplication by converting driver to pure ACPI one.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have fixed couple issues, but...
> > > >
> > > > > +Rafael
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see any reason *not* to do this, it seems the acpi driver
> > > > > model provides
> > > > > some of the boilerplate stuff we were doing manually before as a
> > > > > platform
> > > > > device. I'm scratching my head wondering why we did this as a
> > > > > platform-driver in
> > > > > the first place now...
> 
> It looks like I have overlooked this.
> 
> Generally speaking, binding drivers to ACPI device objects is a bad idea,
> because it is sort of what binding drivers to struct device_node in OF would
> be.  It was an unfortunate design choice for struct acpi_device to be based
> on struct device in the first place, but undoing it is not worth the effort
> and pain.
> 
> In some instances (PCI, PNP, I2C, SPI etc) there is a device object to bind a
> driver to already and the corresponding struct acpi_device is the "companion"
> of it.  In those cases binding a driver to the struct acpi_device itself
> clearly doesn't make sense.
> 
> In the cases like the $subject one it is less clear, but for symmetry and
> general confusion avoidance it is better to have a struct device representing
> the "physical" thing *in* *addition* to the struct acpi_device and use the
> latter as the "companion" of it.  That's why we have the platform device in
> this particular case.
> 
> Please drop this patch, it doesn't go in the right direction IMO.

BTW, please CC patches with ACPI material to linux-acpi.  They are less likely
to be overlooked by me then and the others on that list may have opinions on
them too.

Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver

[Pali Rohár]

On Wednesday 07 February 2018 10:47:57 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> BTW, please CC patches with ACPI material to linux-acpi.  They are less likely
> to be overlooked by me then and the others on that list may have opinions on
> them too.

Maybe we can update MAINTAINERS file for acpi based platform-x86 drivers
to include linux-acpi list? Darren, Andy, any idea?

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

RE: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver

[Mario.Limonciello]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pali Rohár [mailto:pali.rohar@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 3:55 AM
> To: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>; Limonciello, Mario
> <Mario_Limonciello@Dell.com>; andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com;
> dvhart@infradead.org; platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org;
> acelan.kao@canonical.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver
> 
> On Wednesday 07 February 2018 10:47:57 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > BTW, please CC patches with ACPI material to linux-acpi.  They are less likely
> > to be overlooked by me then and the others on that list may have opinions on
> > them too.
> 
> Maybe we can update MAINTAINERS file for acpi based platform-x86 drivers
> to include linux-acpi list? Darren, Andy, any idea?
> 

I would also wonder if the intel-vbtn driver should still live in platform-x86 as it's
now pure ACPI driver with this change Andy proposed.

Btw Andy for your v2 with your fixups that were in your review branch feel free
to add:
Tested-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@dell.com>

When you resubmit it.

Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 13:08 +0000, Mario.Limonciello@dell.com wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pali Rohár [mailto:pali.rohar@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 3:55 AM
> > To: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>; Limonciello, Mario
> > <Mario_Limonciello@Dell.com>; andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com;
> > dvhart@infradead.org; platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org;
> > acelan.kao@canonical.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to
> > pure ACPI driver
> > 
> > On Wednesday 07 February 2018 10:47:57 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > BTW, please CC patches with ACPI material to linux-acpi.  They are
> > > less likely
> > > to be overlooked by me then and the others on that list may have
> > > opinions on
> > > them too.
> > 
> > Maybe we can update MAINTAINERS file for acpi based platform-x86
> > drivers
> > to include linux-acpi list? Darren, Andy, any idea?
> > 
> 
> I would also wonder if the intel-vbtn driver should still live in
> platform-x86 as it's
> now pure ACPI driver with this change Andy proposed.
> 
> Btw Andy for your v2 with your fixups that were in your review branch
> feel free
> to add:
> Tested-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@dell.com>
> 
> When you resubmit it.

Mario, Rafael clarifies the matter and NACKed this one (which kinda was
expected by me, that's why RFC was in the first place).

I'm going to drop this patch from my queue.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy

Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 10:55:22 AM CET Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 February 2018 10:47:57 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > BTW, please CC patches with ACPI material to linux-acpi.  They are less likely
> > to be overlooked by me then and the others on that list may have opinions on
> > them too.
> 
> Maybe we can update MAINTAINERS file for acpi based platform-x86 drivers
> to include linux-acpi list? Darren, Andy, any idea?

You could, but generally, if you have ACPI material in your patch,
CCing linux-acpi won't hurt.

Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 2:18:52 PM CET Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 13:08 +0000, Mario.Limonciello@dell.com wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pali Rohár [mailto:pali.rohar@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 3:55 AM
> > > To: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> > > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>; Limonciello, Mario
> > > <Mario_Limonciello@Dell.com>; andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com;
> > > dvhart@infradead.org; platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org;
> > > acelan.kao@canonical.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to
> > > pure ACPI driver
> > > 
> > > On Wednesday 07 February 2018 10:47:57 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > BTW, please CC patches with ACPI material to linux-acpi.  They are
> > > > less likely
> > > > to be overlooked by me then and the others on that list may have
> > > > opinions on
> > > > them too.
> > > 
> > > Maybe we can update MAINTAINERS file for acpi based platform-x86
> > > drivers
> > > to include linux-acpi list? Darren, Andy, any idea?
> > > 
> > 
> > I would also wonder if the intel-vbtn driver should still live in
> > platform-x86 as it's
> > now pure ACPI driver with this change Andy proposed.
> > 
> > Btw Andy for your v2 with your fixups that were in your review branch
> > feel free
> > to add:
> > Tested-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@dell.com>
> > 
> > When you resubmit it.
> 
> Mario, Rafael clarifies the matter and NACKed this one (which kinda was
> expected by me, that's why RFC was in the first place).
> 
> I'm going to drop this patch from my queue.

Thanks!