linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform: x86: ChromeOS ACPI

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]

Message-ID: <CAOesGMhUKLiu6VwfAhUFdoa-XXjSK1Tr_TahS+4vnfAnoLJ-UA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2017 08:17:18 -0700
From:   Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To:     Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>
Cc:     Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" 
        <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>, vbendeb@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform: x86: ChromeOS ACPI

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Enric Balletbo i Serra
<enric.balletbo@...labora.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The following series adds a ChromeOS ACPI device and export some values
> reported by the ACPI in a sysfs directory. The patches comes from the
> ChromeOS kernel and were originally created by Olof Johansson. These
> are just a squashed version with few modifications.

It might have received my authorship through rebases or moving the
code, but it was originally implemented by Vadim Bendebury, cc:d here
-- not by me.

https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/7dcefe33416d29c524b331ebcf696a8962fbc3cb

> One doubt that I have is that I'm not sure if the chromeos_acpi driver
> should reside in drivers/platform/x86/ or in drivers/platform/chrome.
> Any preference on this?

I have no preference, but original intent of drivers/platform/chrome
was to not organize it by architecture and have both x86 and ARM
there. Whether that still makes sense I'll leave up to current
maintainers.

Also, I see you refreshed copyright dates to 2017 on all contents,
instead of using at least the original and current year. Seems a
little odd to me -- the code clearly isn't all new and written this
year.


-Olof