linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] platform: x86: asus-wmi: add fan control

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 14 Oct 2013 18:27:33 -0500
From:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	"corentin.chary@...il.com" <corentin.chary@...il.com>,
	"acpi4asus-user@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<acpi4asus-user@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" 
	<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] platform: x86: asus-wmi: add fan control

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 06:18:36PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
>> > It wouldn't be appropriate to alter the firmware behaviour by default,
>> > but yeah, that's the kind of thing that the thermal framework exists to
>> > do.
>>
>> Well, how do I do that? The driver is up and running, and I can
>> manually set different fan speeds, however nothing seems to happen
>> automatically when the temperature increases.
>
> The easiest is to just do it from userspace. I think Intel have some
> code for doing this, but I haven't looked at the thermal code for years.

That defeats the purpose of the whole thermal binding infrastructure.

>> > I don't think you can easily register multiple drivers for the same WMI
>> > device.
>>
>> I don't mean this one, I mean the standalone one. Actually, the first
>> one I sent doesn't require all this system memory stuff.
>
> Banging EC registers directly is the wrong thing to do. Going via WMI is
> correct.

I'm not going to bother arguing against your absolutist rhetoric. The
fact is one patch can be applied, the other can't. Besides, nobody
said anything about banging EC registers directly.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/