On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> One more thing I just noticed...
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 12:59:38 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> @@ -372,20 +390,26 @@ static int __init dell_wmi_input_setup(void)
>> dell_wmi_input_dev->phys = "wmi/input0";
>> dell_wmi_input_dev->id.bustype = BUS_HOST;
>>
>> - if (dell_new_hk_type) {
>> - const struct key_entry *keymap = dell_wmi_prepare_new_keymap();
>> - if (!keymap) {
>> - err = -ENOMEM;
>> - goto err_free_dev;
>> - }
>> + err = dmi_walk(handle_dmi_entry, &dmi_results);
>> + if (err)
>> + goto err_free_dev;
>> (...)
>> @@ -431,7 +446,6 @@ static int __init dell_wmi_init(void)
>> return -ENODEV;
>> }
>>
>> - dmi_walk(find_hk_type, NULL);
>>
>> err = dell_wmi_input_setup();
>> if (err)
>
> Before, in the absence of DMI support, the driver would load and assume
> the old hotkey interface. After your change, the driver will fail to
> load if DMI support is missing. This could, in theory, cause a
> regression (although I would be very surprised if even the oldest
> supported models don't implement DMI.)
I switched it from a failure to a pr_warn.
>
> If you want this patch to make it into stable, you probably should
> stick to the original behavior and move that change (if you still
> believe it is a good idea) to a separate patch, and at the same time
> make DELL_WMI either select or depend on DMI. Many other platform/x86
> drivers should do the same, BTW, but that's a separate topic.
>
I'm going to add a patch for that to the series, without Cc: stable.
I don't think it's a big enough deal to be worth -stable churn.
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
