linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: kempld: Switch back to earlier ->init() behavior

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <752a83bc9a55ef821288254d2a1b2c4f7fe35b37.camel@secunet.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 14:42:42 +0000
From: "Heijligen, Thomas" <thomas.heijligen@...unet.com>
To: "andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com" <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	"lee@...nel.org" <lee@...nel.org>
CC: "Schumann, Peter" <Peter.Schumann@...unet.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Huber, Nico"
	<Nico.Huber@...unet.com>, "michael.brunner@...tron.com"
	<michael.brunner@...tron.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: kempld: Switch back to earlier ->init() behavior

On Wed, 2025-07-23 at 18:04 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 10:56:47AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > 
> > > Commit 9e36775c22c7 ("mfd: kempld: Remove custom DMI matching code")
> > > removes the ability to load the driver if no matching system DMI data
> > > is found. Before this commit the driver could be loaded using
> > > alternative methods such as ACPI or `force_device_id` in the absence
> > > of a matching system DMI entry.
> > 
> > You need to Cc the author of this change to give them a say.
> 
> Thanks for Cc'ing me.
> 
> > > Restore this ability while keeping the refactored
> > > `platform_device_info` table.
> 
> So, the error will be returned when CONFIG_DMI=n, or there is no matching entry
> in the table. And the table only is filled when present in the firmware and kernel
> has CONFIG_DMI=y. That's why the original code was iterating via DMI strings in
> a custom way. Besides that there is an ACPI enumeration available, which is not
> visible directly from that piece and hence no error should be returned if no
> matches found.
Correct
> 
> Now to prevent similar patches (as mine) appear in the future, can we also add
> a comment on top of the for-loop to explain all this?
I do this and send a v2 patch
> 
> With a comment added, you may add my
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Thanks