linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] iio: accel: bmc150: Check for a second ACPI device for BOSC0200

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:   Tue, 30 Jan 2018 22:12:35 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Steven Presser <steve@...ssers.name>
Cc:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Jeremy Cline <jeremy@...ine.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...23.retrosnub.co.uk>,
        Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars@...bit.com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iio: accel: bmc150: Check for a second ACPI device for BOSC0200

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:27 PM, Steven Presser <steve@...ssers.name> wrote:
> On 01/30/2018 02:05 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:34 PM, Steven Presser <steve@...ssers.name>
>> wrote:

>>> First, I believe the "bmc150" in the subject line is in some way a
>>> misnomer.
>>> You'd have to ask Jeremy for more details on what he intended it to refer
>>> to.  However, I believe the device in question is actually the bma250[1],
>>> which does not have a magnetometer component.  I'm unfortunately away
>>> from
>>> my notes, but I can check later if you need me to verify the exact chip.
>>
>> Please do, I would really be on the safe side here.
>
> Will do.  My digital notes indicate I worked from what was exposed back to
> what chip matched.  If you can give me through Friday evening, I'll crack it
> and do a visual verification.  (Alas, I'm traveling and won't be back to it
> until then).

We are in the merge window anyway, so, no hurry.

I'm looking right now in the clean solution. Looks promising.

>> Bad, bad Lenovo. (DMI strings might help here)
> What particular DMI strings would be helpful?  All of them?

Let's do this way. Create a bug on kernel bugzilla, attach output of

% acpidump -o tables.dat # tables.dat file
% grep -H 15 /sys/bus/acpi/devices/*/status
% dmidecode

and share the number here. I will take it.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko