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  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:   Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:39:20 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <>
To:     Darren Hart <>
Cc:     Ritesh Raj Sarraf <>,
        Rafael Wysocki <>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <>,
        Platform Driver <>,
        Ike Panhc <>,
        Andy Shevchenko <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: ideapad-laptop: Add sysfs interface for
 touchpad state

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Darren Hart <> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 07:46:12PM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
>> Lenovo Yoga (many variants: Yoga, Yoga2 Pro, Yoga2 13, Yoga3 Pro, Yoga 3
>> 14 etc) has multiple modles that are a hybrid laptop, working in laptop
>> mode as well as tablet mode.

> That said, we need to make these systems usable, and as there appears not to be
> an accepted standard way of doing this, I don't object to the approach. However,
> you mentioned in the bug comments (#64) on 2/12:
>     "I have attached the final patch that I had proposed, but for whatever
>     reasons, the maintainer isn't convinced that that interface is needed."
> This is the only version of this patch I have seen.

This patch is actually a v2 that includes maintainers as I had asked
and additional paragraph to explain why we need such interface.

> Who objected to the patch?

I was trying to understand why /dev/input/eventX can not be used for a such.

> I would like to hear from Rafael and Dmitry, for their opinion on an ACPI or INPUT
> interface for indicating TABLET_MODE to userspace. Even if we accept this patch
> as is, we should be thinking about how to do this in a standard way.

Good point!

>> +
>> +     if (!count)
>> +             return 0;
>> +     if (sscanf(buf, "%i", &state) != 1)
>> +             return -EINVAL;
> Please use kstrtoint, and no need to check for count as this function won't get
> called if it is 0.

I guess Ritesh followed existing style in the code.

With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists