[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 8/9] platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: Register a privacy-screen device
Lyude Paul
lyude at redhat.com
Wed Sep 15 20:55:55 UTC 2021
On Mon, 2021-09-06 at 09:35 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Register a privacy-screen device on laptops with a privacy-screen,
> this exports the PrivacyGuard features to user-space using a
> standardized vendor-agnostic sysfs interface. Note the sysfs interface
> is read-only.
>
> Registering a privacy-screen device with the new privacy-screen class
> code will also allow the GPU driver to get a handle to it and export
> the privacy-screen setting as a property on the DRM connector object
> for the LCD panel. This DRM connector property is news standardized
Looks like a typo here ------------------------------^
> interface which all user-space code should use to query and control
> the privacy-screen.
>
> Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Make the new lcdshadow_set_sw_state, lcdshadow_get_hw_state and
> lcdshadow_ops symbols static
> - Update state and call drm_privacy_screen_call_notifier_chain()
> when the state is changed by pressing the Fn + D hotkey combo
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig | 2 +
> drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c | 91 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig b/drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig
> index d12db6c316ea..ae00a27f9f95 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -509,7 +509,9 @@ config THINKPAD_ACPI
> depends on ACPI_VIDEO || ACPI_VIDEO = n
> depends on BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE
> depends on I2C
> + depends on DRM
> select ACPI_PLATFORM_PROFILE
> + select DRM_PRIVACY_SCREEN
> select HWMON
> select NVRAM
> select NEW_LEDS
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> index b8f2556c4797..044b238730ba 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> @@ -73,6 +73,7 @@
> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> #include <acpi/battery.h>
> #include <acpi/video.h>
> +#include <drm/drm_privacy_screen_driver.h>
> #include "dual_accel_detect.h"
>
> /* ThinkPad CMOS commands */
> @@ -157,6 +158,7 @@ enum tpacpi_hkey_event_t {
> TP_HKEY_EV_VOL_UP = 0x1015, /* Volume up or unmute */
> TP_HKEY_EV_VOL_DOWN = 0x1016, /* Volume down or unmute
> */
> TP_HKEY_EV_VOL_MUTE = 0x1017, /* Mixer output mute */
> + TP_HKEY_EV_PRIVACYGUARD_TOGGLE = 0x130f, /* Toggle priv.guard
> on/off */
>
> /* Reasons for waking up from S3/S4 */
> TP_HKEY_EV_WKUP_S3_UNDOCK = 0x2304, /* undock requested, S3 */
> @@ -3889,6 +3891,12 @@ static bool hotkey_notify_extended_hotkey(const u32
> hkey)
> {
> unsigned int scancode;
>
> + switch (hkey) {
> + case TP_HKEY_EV_PRIVACYGUARD_TOGGLE:
> + tpacpi_driver_event(hkey);
> + return true;
> + }
> +
> /* Extended keycodes start at 0x300 and our offset into the map
> * TP_ACPI_HOTKEYSCAN_EXTENDED_START. The calculated scancode
> * will be positive, but might not be in the correct range.
> @@ -9819,30 +9827,40 @@ static struct ibm_struct battery_driver_data = {
> * LCD Shadow subdriver, for the Lenovo PrivacyGuard feature
> */
>
> +static struct drm_privacy_screen *lcdshadow_dev;
> static acpi_handle lcdshadow_get_handle;
> static acpi_handle lcdshadow_set_handle;
> -static int lcdshadow_state;
>
> -static int lcdshadow_on_off(bool state)
> +static int lcdshadow_set_sw_state(struct drm_privacy_screen *priv,
> + enum drm_privacy_screen_status state)
> {
> int output;
>
> + if (WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&priv->lock)))
> + return -EIO;
> +
> if (!acpi_evalf(lcdshadow_set_handle, &output, NULL, "dd",
> (int)state))
> return -EIO;
>
> - lcdshadow_state = state;
> + priv->hw_state = priv->sw_state = state;
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int lcdshadow_set(bool on)
> +static void lcdshadow_get_hw_state(struct drm_privacy_screen *priv)
> {
> - if (lcdshadow_state < 0)
> - return lcdshadow_state;
> - if (lcdshadow_state == on)
> - return 0;
> - return lcdshadow_on_off(on);
> + int output;
> +
> + if (!acpi_evalf(lcdshadow_get_handle, &output, NULL, "dd", 0))
> + return;
> +
> + priv->hw_state = priv->sw_state = output & 0x1;
> }
>
> +static const struct drm_privacy_screen_ops lcdshadow_ops = {
> + .set_sw_state = lcdshadow_set_sw_state,
> + .get_hw_state = lcdshadow_get_hw_state,
> +};
> +
> static int tpacpi_lcdshadow_init(struct ibm_init_struct *iibm)
> {
> acpi_status status1, status2;
> @@ -9850,36 +9868,44 @@ static int tpacpi_lcdshadow_init(struct
> ibm_init_struct *iibm)
>
> status1 = acpi_get_handle(hkey_handle, "GSSS",
> &lcdshadow_get_handle);
> status2 = acpi_get_handle(hkey_handle, "SSSS",
> &lcdshadow_set_handle);
> - if (ACPI_FAILURE(status1) || ACPI_FAILURE(status2)) {
> - lcdshadow_state = -ENODEV;
> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status1) || ACPI_FAILURE(status2))
> return 0;
> - }
>
> - if (!acpi_evalf(lcdshadow_get_handle, &output, NULL, "dd", 0)) {
> - lcdshadow_state = -EIO;
> + if (!acpi_evalf(lcdshadow_get_handle, &output, NULL, "dd", 0))
> return -EIO;
> - }
> - if (!(output & 0x10000)) {
> - lcdshadow_state = -ENODEV;
> +
> + if (!(output & 0x10000))
> return 0;
> - }
> - lcdshadow_state = output & 0x1;
> +
> + lcdshadow_dev = drm_privacy_screen_register(&tpacpi_pdev->dev,
> + &lcdshadow_ops);
> + if (IS_ERR(lcdshadow_dev))
> + return PTR_ERR(lcdshadow_dev);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void lcdshadow_exit(void)
> +{
> + drm_privacy_screen_unregister(lcdshadow_dev);
> +}
> +
> static void lcdshadow_resume(void)
> {
> - if (lcdshadow_state >= 0)
> - lcdshadow_on_off(lcdshadow_state);
> + if (!lcdshadow_dev)
> + return;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&lcdshadow_dev->lock);
> + lcdshadow_set_sw_state(lcdshadow_dev, lcdshadow_dev->sw_state);
> + mutex_unlock(&lcdshadow_dev->lock);
> }
>
For privacy screens provided by x86 platform drivers this is -probably-
correct, but only so long as we're confident that the privacy screen is always
going to be controllable regardless of the power state of the actual LCD
panel.
I'd think we would need to handle suspend/resume in the atomic commit though
if we ever have to support systems where the two are dependent on one another,
but, that's a simple enough change to do later if it arises that I think we
can ignore it for now.
> static int lcdshadow_read(struct seq_file *m)
> {
> - if (lcdshadow_state < 0) {
> + if (!lcdshadow_dev) {
> seq_puts(m, "status:\t\tnot supported\n");
> } else {
> - seq_printf(m, "status:\t\t%d\n", lcdshadow_state);
> + seq_printf(m, "status:\t\t%d\n", lcdshadow_dev->hw_state);
> seq_puts(m, "commands:\t0, 1\n");
> }
>
> @@ -9891,7 +9917,7 @@ static int lcdshadow_write(char *buf)
> char *cmd;
> int res, state = -EINVAL;
>
> - if (lcdshadow_state < 0)
> + if (!lcdshadow_dev)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> while ((cmd = strsep(&buf, ","))) {
> @@ -9903,11 +9929,18 @@ static int lcdshadow_write(char *buf)
> if (state >= 2 || state < 0)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - return lcdshadow_set(state);
> + mutex_lock(&lcdshadow_dev->lock);
> + res = lcdshadow_set_sw_state(lcdshadow_dev, state);
> + mutex_unlock(&lcdshadow_dev->lock);
> +
> + drm_privacy_screen_call_notifier_chain(lcdshadow_dev);
> +
> + return res;
> }
>
> static struct ibm_struct lcdshadow_driver_data = {
> .name = "lcdshadow",
> + .exit = lcdshadow_exit,
> .resume = lcdshadow_resume,
> .read = lcdshadow_read,
> .write = lcdshadow_write,
> @@ -10717,6 +10750,14 @@ static void tpacpi_driver_event(const unsigned int
> hkey_event)
> if (!atomic_add_unless(&dytc_ignore_event, -1, 0))
> dytc_profile_refresh();
> }
> +
> + if (lcdshadow_dev && hkey_event == TP_HKEY_EV_PRIVACYGUARD_TOGGLE) {
> + mutex_lock(&lcdshadow_dev->lock);
> + lcdshadow_get_hw_state(lcdshadow_dev);
> + mutex_unlock(&lcdshadow_dev->lock);
> +
> + drm_privacy_screen_call_notifier_chain(lcdshadow_dev);
> + }
> }
>
> static void hotkey_driver_event(const unsigned int scancode)
--
Cheers,
Lyude Paul (she/her)
Software Engineer at Red Hat
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list