linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: fix for incorrect fan reporting on some ThinkPad systems

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]

Message-ID: <25f86da-2484-3cf9-ae1e-73cac2e6541a@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Dec 2023 13:06:17 +0200 (EET)
From:   Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Vishnu Sankar <vishnuocv@...il.com>
cc:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, markgross@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: fix for incorrect fan
 reporting on some ThinkPad systems

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Dec 2023, Vishnu Sankar wrote:
> 
> Hi Vishnu,
> 
> Thanks for the patch.
> 
> > Some ThinkPad systems ECFW use non-standard addresses for fan control
> > and reporting. This patch adds support for such ECFW so that it can report
> > the correct fan values.
> > Tested on Thinkpads L13 Yoga Gen 2 and X13 Yoga Gen 2.
> > 
> > Co-developed-by: Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>
> > Signed-off-by: Vishnu Sankar <vishnuocv@...il.com>

> > +		/* Default mode is AUTO which means controlled by EC */
> > +		if (unlikely(!acpi_ec_read(fan_status_offset_ns, &s)))
> 
> I'm skeptical that all these unlikely/likely() are useful. Some might even 
> be harmful if e.g. is some error condition keeps repeating itself and 
> the particular if handling that is marked with unlikely().
> 
> I know the code in that file is littered with them already but it would 
> be better to add into that, IMO.

So I'm missing the negative here, I meant: ... not add into that ...

-- 
 i.