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: Fri, 01 Jan 2021 17:09:37 +0000 From: Barnabás Pőcze <pobrn@...tonmail.com> To: Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com> Cc: "platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>, "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Ike Panhc <ike.pan@...onical.com>, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: ideapad-laptop: Add has_touchpad_switch Hi 2021. január 1., péntek 17:08 keltezéssel, Jiaxun Yang írta: > [...] > > > @@ -1006,6 +1018,10 @@ static int ideapad_acpi_add(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > if (!priv->has_hw_rfkill_switch) > > > write_ec_cmd(priv->adev->handle, VPCCMD_W_RF, 1); > > > > > > + /* The same for Touchpad */ > > > + if (!priv->has_touchpad_switch) > > > + write_ec_cmd(priv->adev->handle, VPCCMD_W_TOUCHPAD, 1); > > > + > > > > Shouldn't it be the other way around: `if (priv->has_touchpad_switch)`? > > It is to prevent accidentally disable touchpad on machines that do have EC switch, > so it's intentional. > [...] Sorry, but the explanation not fully clear to me. The commit message seems to indicate that some models "do not use EC to switch touchpad", and I take that means that reading from VPCCMD_R_TOUCHPAD will not reflect the actual state of the touchpad and writing to VPCCMD_W_TOUCHPAD will not change the state of the touchpad. But then why do you still write to VPCCMD_W_TOUCHPAD on devices where supposedly this does not have any effect (at least not the desired one)? And the part of the code I made my comment about only runs on machines on which the touchpad supposedly cannot be controlled by the EC. What am I missing? And there is the other problem: on some machines, this patch removes working functionality. Regards, Barnabás Pőcze
Powered by blists - more mailing lists