On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 10:26:40AM -0500, Kyle Evans wrote: > On 08/28/2015 01:42 PM, Darren Hart wrote: > >On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 09:56:00AM -0500, Kyle Evans wrote: > >>Do not attempt to initialize hotkeys if the query returns a value. > >>Furthermore, do not write initialize magic on systems that do not have > >>feature query 0xb. Fixes Bug #82451. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Kyle Evans <[email protected]> > > > >Hi Kyle, > > > >Please always include the maintainer from MAINTAINERS on Cc when submitting > >kernel patches. See Documentation/SubmittingPatches. > > > >For example: > > > >$ scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f drivers/platform/x86/hp-wmi.c > >Darren Hart <[email protected]> (maintainer:X86 PLATFORM DRIVERS) > >[email protected] (open list:X86 PLATFORM DRIVERS) > >[email protected] (open list) > > > >This will ensure a more timely response. > > > >>--- > >> drivers/platform/x86/hp-wmi.c | 17 +++++++++++++---- > >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >> > >>diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/hp-wmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/hp-wmi.c > >>index 0669731..557650f 100644 > >>--- a/drivers/platform/x86/hp-wmi.c > >>+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/hp-wmi.c > >>@@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ MODULE_ALIAS("wmi:5FB7F034-2C63-45e9-BE91-3D44E2C707E4"); > >> #define HPWMI_HARDWARE_QUERY 0x4 > >> #define HPWMI_WIRELESS_QUERY 0x5 > >> #define HPWMI_BIOS_QUERY 0x9 > >>+#define HPWMI_FEATURE2_QUERY 0xb > >> #define HPWMI_HOTKEY_QUERY 0xc > >> #define HPWMI_FEATURE_QUERY 0xd > >> #define HPWMI_WIRELESS2_QUERY 0x1b > >>@@ -309,10 +310,18 @@ static int __init hp_wmi_bios_2009_later(void) > >> static int hp_wmi_enable_hotkeys(void) > >> { > >> int ret; > >>- int query = 0x6e; > >>+ int query = 0xff; > >>+ int value = 0x6e; > >> > >>- ret = hp_wmi_perform_query(HPWMI_BIOS_QUERY, 1, &query, sizeof(query), > >>- 0); > >>+ ret = hp_wmi_perform_query(HPWMI_BIOS_QUERY, 0, &query, > >>+ 0, sizeof(query)); > >>+ > >>+ if (!query) { > > > >I suspect this should come after the test for ret. If there is a more > >fundamental error, it would make sense to exit with -EINVAL first. Despite > >query > >being initialized to 0xff, we have no guarantee the firmware won't set it to > >0 > >and still return an error. > > That makes sense. Another sticky bit is, do we want to fail on a device that > doesn't need this? Not really. > > How about I throw out the initial read, because, the test for FEATURE2_QUERY > is the bit that actually fixes the bug. The read is just fearful bug > prevention. How is this? > > @@ -309,10 +310,13 @@ static int __init hp_wmi_bios_2009_later(void) > static int hp_wmi_enable_hotkeys(void) > { > int ret; > - int query = 0x6e; > + int query; > + int value = 0x6e;
"Reverse Christmas Tree" ordering please (longest to shortest, and it's OK to group like types: int value = 0x6e; int query; int ret; It's also fine to group like types, preferred by some maintainers, I'm not particular, but do appreciate consistency. int value = 0x6e; int query, ret; Both are acceptable. Is there a reason 0x6e doesn't merit some kind of a HP_WMI_QUERY_XYZ define? > > - ret = hp_wmi_perform_query(HPWMI_BIOS_QUERY, 1, &query, sizeof(query), > - 0); > + if (!hp_wmi_perform_query(HPWMI_FEATURE2_QUERY, 0, &query, > + 0, sizeof(query))) > + ret = hp_wmi_perform_query(HPWMI_BIOS_QUERY, 1, &value, > + sizeof(value), 0); > > if (ret) > return -EINVAL; The problem with this is it doesn't distinguish between the feature not being present, and an actual failure, since it doesn't capture the ret of FEATURE2_QUERY. Consider the possible return values for FEATURE2_QUERY on devices with the feature and devices without, does the above code do the right thing in all cases? > > > > > >Rafael, would you agree? > > > >And technically, EINVAL isn't the right error for a general error (but > >that's a > >preexisting problem). You don't have to fix that to get this in. > > > > > >>+ if (!hp_wmi_perform_query(HPWMI_FEATURE2_QUERY, 0, &query, > >>+ 0, sizeof(query))) > >>+ ret = hp_wmi_perform_query(HPWMI_BIOS_QUERY, 1, &value, > > > >Careful with indentation, use tabs please. checkpatch.pl would have caught > >this. > > > > > >>+ sizeof(value), 0); > >>+ } > >> > >> if (ret) > >> return -EINVAL; > >>@@ -663,7 +672,7 @@ static int __init hp_wmi_input_setup(void) > >> hp_wmi_tablet_state()); > >> input_sync(hp_wmi_input_dev); > >> > >>- if (hp_wmi_bios_2009_later() == 4) > >>+ if (hp_wmi_bios_2009_later() == HPWMI_RET_UNKNOWN_CMDTYPE) > >> hp_wmi_enable_hotkeys(); > > > >This bit is fine, but no magic number cleanup is mentioned in the change log. > >Was this change intentional? > > It was intentional but I didn't think it was worth a patch request. I had > forgot that I made the change when creating a new patch and was on the fence > about what to do about it so I didn't do anything. I'll be sure to call out > that sort of thing in the future. Right, rolling it together with a semi-related change is OK for things like in my opinion. But do make note of it in the changelog. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
