linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8] platform/x86: samsung-galaxybook: Add samsung-galaxybook driver

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: <628d5725-2d20-4298-862d-ad0e47782d15@t-8ch.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 22:17:11 +0100
From: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
To: Joshua Grisham <josh@...huagrisham.com>
Cc: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@...il.com>, W_Armin@....de, 
	ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com, hdegoede@...hat.com, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, 
	corbet@....net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] platform/x86: samsung-galaxybook: Add
 samsung-galaxybook driver

Hi Joshua,

sorry for the late reply.

On 2025-01-28 20:17:53+0100, Joshua Grisham wrote:
> Thank you Kurt!
> 
> Den lör 25 jan. 2025 kl 16:06 skrev Kurt Borja <kuurtb@...il.com>:
> >
> > Now I understand the original problem better. I didn't consider this
> > possibility when designing the callback.
> >
> > While this is a fine solution I believe Thomas' EOPNOTSUPP solution is
> > the way to go. I think positive err value would be the safest but you
> > should wait for the advice of someone with more experience.
> >
> > Aside from that I really like how the whole platform profile sections
> > works now. Good design choices :)
> >
> > ~ Kurt
> >
> > > <snip>
> 
> Regarding using this positive error code internally within the module,
> I thought about maybe adding a comment to galaxybook_probe() before
> all of the inits which describe this a bit -- do you all think this
> will be helpful or is it clear enough / does not matter and can be
> skipped?

To me that sounds reasonable.

<snip>

> If this comment (you all are welcome to suggest wording tweaks as
> well, of course!) plus the few other small tweaks make sense then I
> can prep this to send as a new version. But I am holding a bit in
> hopes that the 6.14 stuff gets merged to pdx86 for-next so that I can
> go ahead with implementing Thomas's new power supply extension
> interface at the same time.

Nice :-)

<snip>