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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 15:41:35 -0800 From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> To: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org> Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Wei Ni <wni@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, LM Sensors <lm-sensors@...sensors.org> Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] lm90 driver no longer working on PCs in 3.13 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:04:47PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 10:50:31 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:19:24AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > > > On 01/26/2014 04:51 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 02:04:06PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > > > >> I think I have a better idea: Surround the regulator code, or at least > > > >> its error handling, in the lm90 driver with > > > > > > > >> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF)) { > > > >> } > > > > > > > >> Would that be ok ? If yes I'll submit a patch. I'll do the same in > > > >> another driver I am working on. > > > > > > > > That's not going to have the desired effect in cases where DT is built > > > > into the kernel but not in use on the current system (which is a > > > > configuration that gets used) ... > > > > > > The solution to that particular aspect of the problem is the following: > > > > > > if (of_have_populated_dt()) { > > > ... > > > > > > > Turns out that won't help either after Mark's patches to ACPI and > > to the regulator core are applied. Right now I don't have a solution > > that would work for all systems. > > > > I'll leave it up to Jean to decide how to proceed. > > I have no idea, really. I have seen multiple patches flying around, > each seems to have its own merits, but I simply don't know which is > going in the direction. I don't know a thing about regulators, OF, DT > etc. so I am really not the right person to make a decision about this. > > All I can say is: either someone comes up with a patch set which > properly fixes the regression for all lm90 drivers users, or I will have > to revert commit 3e0f964f. > I'll test Mark's two patches on my system and let you know the results. After looking some more into it, those _may_ actually fix the problem at least for systems supporting ACPI. No promise, though, and I am not sure if that would be sufficient (it may still not work on non-ACPI PCs). But then who am I to say ... Mark keeps repeating that I don't know what I am talking about, after all, and maybe he has a point ;-). Guenter -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists