linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: ideapad-laptop: Expose conservation mode switch

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, 7 Aug 2017 21:20:57 +0800
From:   Hao Wei Tee <angelsl@...4.sg>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Ike Panhc <ike.pan@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: ideapad-laptop: Expose conservation mode
 switch

On 7/8/2017 02:35, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Hao Wei Tee <angelsl@...4.sg> wrote:
>> On 30/5/2017 21:22, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Hao Wei Tee <angelsl@...elsl.xyz> wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/17 3:31 PM, Hao Wei Tee wrote:
>>>>> This exposes the battery conservation mode present on some (?) IdeaPads.
>>>>> The mode is set by calling ACPI method SBMC with argument 3 (on) or
>>>>> 5 (off). Status is reported in bit 5 of the return value of ACPI method
>>>>> GBMD.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch was written based on an IdeaPad U430p. I'm not sure if the ACPI
>>>>> methods are the same across all IdeaPads, so it would be great if this got more
>>>>> testing across other models before it's merged.
>>>>
>>>> I got someone to test on an IdeaPad Y510p. It works on that too.
>>>
>>> Do we have any other option that expose something via sysfs?
>>
>> It's been 2 months, what can I do to get this patch merged, or alternatively some other
>> way of exposing this switch?
> 
> Oh, sorry, I was pretty sure I have done something regarding to this
> patch, but apparently not.
> 
> I'm fine with the change as long as we have no other option than sysfs here.

As far as I can tell most ACPI-related things are exposed via sysfs, and I think we only
have sysfs and ioctl to expose things like this anyway (correct me if I'm wrong, please).

> I'm on vacation for few more days, I will return to this after (ping
> me let's say next Friday if you want to).

Sorry for disturbing your vacation! Thanks again.

-- 
Hao Wei