linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: Fix to correct wrong temp reporting on some ThinkPads

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: <ce399b39-aef8-b911-3575-191a0c1104a5@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 13:44:18 +0200 (EET)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Vishnu Sankar <vishnuocv@...il.com>
cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, 
    LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
    Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>, vsankar@...ovo.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: Fix to correct wrong
 temp reporting on some ThinkPads

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, Vishnu Sankar wrote:

> Added non-standard thermal register's support for some ThinkPads.
> 
> Some of the Thinkpads use a non-standard ECFW which has different
> thermal register addresses. This is a fix to correct the wrong temperature
> reporting on those systems.
> 
> Tested on Lenovo ThinkPad L13 Yoga Gen2.
> 
> Suggested-by: Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>
> Signed-off-by: Vishnu Sankar <vishnuocv@...il.com>

> @@ -6290,6 +6332,8 @@ static int thermal_get_sensors(struct ibm_thermal_sensors_struct *s)
>  
>  	if (thermal_read_mode == TPACPI_THERMAL_TPEC_16)
>  		n = 16;
> +	else if (thermal_read_mode == TPACPI_THERMAL_TPEC_12)
> +		n = 12;
>  
>  	for (i = 0 ; i < n; i++) {
>  		res = thermal_get_sensor(i, &s->temp[i]);

Thanks. Both patches now applied. I did some further cleanups into the 
first patch (which I had requested you to do :-().

This 2nd patch didn't apply cleanly on top of for-next but I handled the 
conflict for you this time, in future, please try to base your work on top 
of for-next branch.


-- 
 i.