From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751994AbdJESEY (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Oct 2017 14:04:24 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37822 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751423AbdJESEV (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Oct 2017 14:04:21 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 753DF19D4D1 Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=hdegoede@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: peaq-wmi: Add DMI check before binding to the WMI interface To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Darren Hart , Andy Shevchenko , Platform Driver , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , stable@vger.kernel.org References: <20171005142021.4899-1-hdegoede@redhat.com> From: Hans de Goede Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:04:19 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Thu, 05 Oct 2017 18:04:21 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 05-10-17 19:59, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 05-10-17 16:23, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>> >>>> It seems that the WMI GUID used by the PEAQ 2-in-1 WMI hotkeys is not >>>> as unique as a GUID should be and is used on some other devices too. >>>> >>>> This is causing spurious key-press reports on these other devices. >>>> >>>> This commits adds a DMI check to the PEAQ 2-in-1 WMI hotkeys driver to >>>> ensure that it is actually running on a PEAQ 2-in-1, fixing the >>>> spurious key-presses on these other devices. >>>> >>> >>> Recently I have pushed similar patch (another device). Can you rebase >>> against testing? >> >> >> That patch adds a blacklist, for yet another model then the 2 bugreports: >> >>>> BugLink: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497861 >>>> BugLink: https://bugzilla.suse.com/attachment.cgi?id=743182 >> >> >> which I've received. My patch adds a whitelist instead as it seems the GUID >> used is some very generic GUID, > > Since you are maintainer and moreover have a hardware to test I assume > that's correct thing to do... > >> so the blacklist patch should simply be >> dropped, > > ... however, the patch can't be dropped. > > Either me, or you in v2 need to revert it. Tell me what you prefer here. Isn't the whole purpose of having a testing branch that patches can actually be dropped. AFAIK this has not even hit -next yet, so IMHO it should just be dropped ? If it really should be reverted instead I'll leave doing a revert up to you. > In any case, please (re)send with Cc to Kai so he or bug reportes may > have a chance to test it as well. Ok, done. Regards, Hans