> -----Original Message----- > From: Limonciello, Mario > Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 2:05 PM > To: 'Andy Lutomirski' <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: RE: Multiple MOF GUID's > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: platform-driver-x86-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:platform-driver-x86- > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andy Lutomirski > > Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 1:33 PM > > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: Multiple MOF GUID's > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 11:30 AM, <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Andy, > > > > > > I was looking at a system that will have many more WMI methods, and realizing > > that I can't > > > view the bmof for the extra methods. This is because of b0e863029 which will > > show a warning > > > when multiple of the same WMI GUID's are found. > > > The same GUID 05901221-D566-11D1-B2F0-00A0C9062910 is used to describe > > each one of them. > > > > So there are multiple WMI instances, both of which have bmof? > > Yep. > > > > > > > > > I think the symlinks in sysfs will break if the warning is just removed. > > > > > > So what should we do about this? I think they should both be accessible from > the > > bmof driver from > > > userspace. > > > > Fixing it will require changing the data structures to get rid of the > > global wmi_block_list. I don't think it'll affect the ABI. I'll > > gladly review a patch ;) > > > > Alright I'll see what I can do. Oh and btw the case of duplicate GUID's that originally brought that code: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d1f9e4970742bb1e22d07b01bd44f9c357d25c42 That's the WMI BMOF GUID 😊 So I won't be too worried about regressions.
