linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iio: bme680_i2c: Make bme680_acpi_match depend on CONFIG

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 7 May 2021 15:39:57 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Menzel <paulepanter@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: bme680_i2c: Make bme680_acpi_match depend on CONFIG_ACPI

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 2:53 PM Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de> wrote:
> On Wed 2021-05-05 16:22:07, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 11:36 AM Jonathan Cameron
> > <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 5 May 2021 09:32:35 +0100
> > > Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 4 May 2021 11:00:52 -0700
> > > > Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > +Cc: Paul (I hope you are related to coreboot somehow and can
> > communicate this further), Pavel and Jacek (LED subsystem suffered
> > with this as well), Hans, Rafael and linux-acpi@
>
> Thanks for Cc. I prefer @ucw.cz address for the LED work.

Noted!

> > > > Dropping the ones we are fairly sure are spurious is even better!
> > >
> > > If I get bored I'll just do a scrub of all the instances of this that
> > > you haven't already cleaned up.  It's worth noting that we do
> > > know some highly suspicious looking entries are out there in the wild.
> >
> > I have counted ~60 users of acpi_device_id in IIO. Brief looking at
> > the IDs themselves rings an alarm about half of them.
>
> As far as I can tell, this means asking "is this real ID or did you
> just invent it" at patch submission. Okay...

I would put it in a way that "Please, provide an ASL excerpt / ACPI
tables dump" or something alike. Because it may also show some
additional information that would make sense to consider when adding
an ID to the driver.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko