On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 03:48:51PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Friday 22 January 2016 15:27:12 Michał Kępień wrote: > > Note: > > > > In this series (both v1 and v2) I tried to stick to the overall > > concept used in dell-laptop, but in the v1 thread me and Pali also > > briefly discussed his alternative ideas [1][2] as to what this API > > could look like, so feel free to suggest a different approach. > > > > [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg08260.html > > [2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg08268.html > > I would like to hear opinion about dell-smbios API also from other > people. Darren, can you look and comment it? This is an excellently prepared series, nice work Michał. Most of my concerns were addressed by later patches in the series. I have pushed a version of this 1/7 fixed per lkp (linux/io.h) and 7/16 with a corrected body as I sent in reply to that patch. This is on my tree as the dell-smbios branch. My only major concern is module load order dependencies. Inter-module dependencies are frowned upon with good reason, the kernel load ordering is non-deterministic and it's possible, for example, for dell-laptop to fail to find the symbols exported by dell-smbios under certain conditions. I have worked around this in the past with things like the following: #ifdef MODULE #ifdef CONFIG_FOO_MODULE if (request_module("foo")) return -ENODEV; #endif #endif Something like the above may be necessary for dell-smbios in dell-laptop, dell-wmi, and dell-leds now that they depend on the dell-smbios exported functions. Cc Greg in case there is a better way to handle this that I'm not aware of. -- 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
