linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] platform/x86: asus-wmi: add support variant of TUF RGB

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: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:01:07 +1300
From: "Luke Jones" <luke@...nes.dev>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Hans de Goede" <hdegoede@...hat.com>, corentin.chary@...il.com,
 platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] platform/x86: asus-wmi: add support variant of TUF RGB



On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, at 12:36 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024, Luke D. Jones wrote:
> 
> > Adds support for a second TUF RGB wmi call that some versions of the TUF
> > laptop come with. Also adjusts existing support to select whichever is
> > available.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Luke D. Jones <luke@...nes.dev>
> > ---
> >  drivers/platform/x86/asus-wmi.c            | 13 +++++++++++--
> >  include/linux/platform_data/x86/asus-wmi.h |  1 +
> >  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/asus-wmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/asus-wmi.c
> > index b9a2fb8007c0..0d8a2b82cc06 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/asus-wmi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/asus-wmi.c
> 
> > @@ -4544,6 +4545,14 @@ static int asus_wmi_add(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  asus->gpu_mux_dev = ASUS_WMI_DEVID_GPU_MUX_VIVO;
> >  }
> >  
> > + if (asus_wmi_dev_is_present(asus, ASUS_WMI_DEVID_TUF_RGB_MODE)) {
> 
> The patch itself is fine,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> However,
> 
> There's a major problem in the way you're submitting these. This patch is 
> built on top of the GPU_MUX_VIVO patch as can be seen from the context
> above. Yet, you're sending these independently instead of series. I 
> suspect there are other similar problems among these patches that there's 
> hidden dependency order in which these should be applied. This will cause 
> problems if maintainer applies the patches in wrong order (they may even 
> misapply with fuzz).
> 
> Only if the patches are truly independent, that is, focus on solving 
> entirely differently thing (functional independency) and do not have any 
> linewise conflicts (code locality independecy) either, it's fine to send 
> patches as independent ones without making a series out of them. But 
> clearly it's not the case here.

Honestly, yeah I should have made them a series. I was sick at the time of submission and shouldn't have been near a computer at all but I have a long backlog.

I'll go through your other reviews and then turn the lot in as a series to prevent any mishaps.