Re: [PATCH 13/15] samsung-laptop: make the dmi check less strict

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 08:17:08AM +0100, Corentin Chary wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:02:44PM +0100, Corentin Chary wrote:
> >> This enable the driver for everything that look like
> >> a laptop and is from vendor "SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.".
> >> Note that laptop supported by samsung-q10 seem to have a different
> >> vendor strict.
> >>
> >> Also remove every log output until we know that we have a SABI interface
> >> (except if the driver is forced to load, or debug is enabled).
> >>
> >> Keeping a whitelist of laptop with a model granularity is something that can't
> >> work without close vendor cooperation (and we don't have that).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Corentin Chary <corentincj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Oh, this is bold.
> >
> > I would like to see this work, but I would need to see it tested on a
> > bunch of machines before I trust it.
> >
> > I guess you now have the acpi video backlight check, which is good, but
> > again, doesn't work for all devices.
> >
> > And yeah, a whitelist is tough, especially as the vendor isn't working
> > with us at all, but I don't want to break machines that don't need this
> > driver (and there are some, although I thought the newest ones would not
> > need it, but that might be true.)
> 
> Here is what the driver does with the patch:
> - automatically load the driver and each machine with vendor =
> "SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD." and type looks like a laptop or
> netbook
> - map the f0000 segment (or exit gracefully)
> - find SwSMI or SECLINUX in this segment (or exit gracefully)
> 
> At this point, if the driver is still loaded, but the laptop doesn't
> support SABI, then it really looks like a model that should be
> blacklisted.
> I'm ok to use dmi for quirks, or blacklist, but honestly if a *samsung
> laptop* advertise SABI support, the driver should be loaded.
> We can't prevent samsung to built a laptop that will burn if we use
> SABI, but if samsung does that, they can also add some fake DMI
> strings too ! And has I said in the changelog, all models supported by
> samsung-q10 are not affected because they don't use the same vendor
> string, and even if they were, I doubt we would found a valid
> signature.

Ok, as long as non-sabi modules will not have problems, I'm ok with
this.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/