Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: Use input_device_enabled()
Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]> Wed, 5 Aug 2026 08:52:30 -0700
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.platform-driver-x86,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Mark, On Wed, Aug 05, 2026 at 10:51:53AM -0400, Mark Pearson wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2026, at 12:03 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > From: Andrzej Pietrasiewicz <[email protected]> > > > > Use the new helper. Inspecting input device's 'users' member needs to be > > done under device's mutex, so add appropriate invocations. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrzej Pietrasiewicz <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[email protected]> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]> > > --- > > > > Not sure how this got stuck in my patch queue but it is still valid... > > > > drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/thinkpad_acpi.c | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/thinkpad_acpi.c > > b/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/thinkpad_acpi.c > > index 445e1403308e..f8e116e8a65d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/thinkpad_acpi.c > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/thinkpad_acpi.c > > @@ -2547,9 +2547,10 @@ static void hotkey_poll_setup(const bool > > may_warn) > > > > lockdep_assert_held(&hotkey_mutex); > > > > + mutex_lock(&tpacpi_inputdev->mutex); > > if (hotkey_poll_freq > 0 && > > (poll_driver_mask || > > - (poll_user_mask && tpacpi_inputdev->users > 0))) { > > + (poll_user_mask && input_device_enabled(tpacpi_inputdev)))) { > > if (!tpacpi_hotkey_task) { > > tpacpi_hotkey_task = kthread_run(hotkey_kthread, > > NULL, TPACPI_NVRAM_KTHREAD_NAME); > > @@ -2566,6 +2567,7 @@ static void hotkey_poll_setup(const bool may_warn) > > poll_user_mask, poll_driver_mask); > > } > > } > > + mutex_unlock(&tpacpi_inputdev->mutex); > > } > > > > static void hotkey_poll_setup_safe(const bool may_warn) > > -- > > Looks good to me. > > Only note is that can you use guard(mutex)(&tpacpi_inputdev->mutex) instead of the lock/unlock? I think that's preferred these days. If that is desired the whole driver needs converting. I can do it in a separate patch(es) if you want. > > Reviewed-by: Mark Pearson <[email protected]> Thanks. -- Dmitry