linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] hwmon: (nct6775) Implement custom lock by ACPI mutex.

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]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VfWnLV29FpJ_FdJg+j3tu9QQzbPAs6OOjZ-3Fdqw8SDOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Nov 2021 23:52:09 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Eugene Shalygin <eugene.shalygin@...il.com>
Cc:     Denis Pauk <pauk.denis@...il.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        thomas@...ssschuh.net, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] hwmon: (nct6775) Implement custom lock by ACPI mutex.

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:33 PM Eugene Shalygin
<eugene.shalygin@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 21:25, Denis Pauk <pauk.denis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > I would like to propose to leave the current name of the driver and add
> > the same logic as in the current patch. So when we know the exact name
> > of acpi mutex - code will use such mutex for lock and directly read EC
> > memory region. In case if we don't know the exact mutex name/path or for
> > some reason ASUS decides to change UEFI code - code will use WMI
> > methods. In such a case, adding or checking a new motherboard will
> > require only adding a minimal list of well known registers without
> > disassembling UEFI code.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Sounds reasonable to me, but nevertheless I think dropping the "wmi"
> part from the driver name would make the name clearer with the
> proposed functional change.

We don't do changes for something which is not yet in the kernel or
about to be there. My proposal stays the same, sorry.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko