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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 25 Nov 2021 05:51:06 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Eugene Shalygin <eugene.shalygin@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Denis Pauk <pauk.denis@...il.com>,
        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 11/25/21 5:14 AM, Eugene Shalygin wrote:
> Dear Andy, Denis, and Günter,
> 
> Denis worked on my code with the first attempt to read EC sensors from
> ASUS motherboards and submitted it as a driver named
> "asus_wmi_ec_sensors", which is not in hwmon-next. Now he adds the
> ACPI lock feature to support other motherboards, and I have another
> iteration of the EC sensor driver under development (needs some
> polishment) that utilizes the same concept (ACPI lock instead of WMI
> methods), which is smaller, cleaner and faster than the WMI-based one.
> I'm going to submit it to the mainline too. I think it should replace
> the WMI one. In anticipation of that, can we change the name of the
> accepted driver (asus_wmi_ec_sensors -> asus_ec_sensors) now, in order
> to not confuse users in the next version and to remove implementation
> detail from the module name? The drivers provide indistinguishable
> data to HWMON.
> 

Two drivers with the same functionality ? What would be the benefit of that ?
Why not drop the current one entirely instead ?

Guenter