linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI driver

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, 05 Feb 2018 18:18:11 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
Cc:     platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        AceLan Kao <acelan.kao@...onical.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pali.rohar@...il.com,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@...l.com>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH v1] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Convert to pure ACPI
 driver

On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 13:37 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 08:26:14PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Remove code duplication by converting driver to pure ACPI one.
> 

I have fixed couple issues, but...

> +Rafael
> 
> I don't see any reason *not* to do this, it seems the acpi driver
> model provides
> some of the boilerplate stuff we were doing manually before as a
> platform
> device. I'm scratching my head wondering why we did this as a
> platform-driver in
> the first place now...

...I still keep in my review queue in a hope that someone can actually
test this on real hardware.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy