> -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Shevchenko [mailto:andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 2:18 PM > To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@xxxxxxxx>; md@xxxxxxxx; > dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx; platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: dell_smbios in 4.15 and keyboard backlight > > On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 19:53 +0000, Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > Marco (CC'ed) privately emailed Pali and I to discuss an issue > > > > that > > > > dell-laptop > > > > wasn't working properly for him and dell-smbios couldn't find a > > > > backend. > > > > > > > > I thought at first it was an issue of the race condition recently > > > > discussed but > > > > it's actually a case that the distro kernel he's using compiled: > > > > > > > > DELL_SMBIOS > > > > DELL_LAPTOP > > > > > > > > But didn't select DELL_SMBIOS_WMI or DELL_SMBIOS_SMM. > > > > > > Distros have to enable whatever they want to. > > > > At least in this instance I'd hypothesize it's because these are new > > config > > options that default to off. > > > > They probably had DELL_SMBIOS enabled before and carried that forward > > But there was nothing to transition them to make them turn on > > DELL_SMBIOS_WMI or DELL_SMBIOS_SMM. > > So, the driver requires now _at least_ one of the backend enabled? Yes. > > > > Can it be the Dell model, that survives w/o one of above or even > > > both? > > > > The design as it exists to day is that dell-laptop needs dell-smbios > > but > > dell-smbios won't run unless it has a backend selected. > > How was it before? The code that's in dell-smbios-smm used to be directly in dell-smbios. It was split into backend approach so that you can choose that or choose WMI backend or both. For a true transition to how things were pre-4.15 it should have been that CONFIG_DELL_SMBIOS selected CONFIG_DELL_SMBIOS_SMM. You would have had an identical experience then after upgrade. > > > Something like this maybe then to not let them even try to run dell- > > smbios? > > Wouldn't be a regression still? > > P.S. See also the link I answered with to Pali. >
