Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] platform/x86: think-lmi: Correct System password interface

[Mark Pearson]

Thanks Ilpo

On Mon, May 29, 2023, at 7:36 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2023, Mark Pearson wrote:
>
>> The system password identification was incorrect. This means that if
>> the password was enabled it wouldn't be detected correctly; and setting
>> it would not work.
>> Also updated code to use TLMI_SMP_PWD instead of TLMI_SYS_PWD to be in
>> sync with Lenovo documentation.
>> 
>> Correct these mistakes.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Missing Fixes tag?

Yes - will add.

>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>>  - Updated define name to be SMP_PWD instead of SYS_PWD
>>  - Clarified in comments what each password type is.
>> Changes in v3: None. Version bump with rest of series
>> 
>>  drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c | 14 +++++++-------
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
>> index 2745224f62ab..c7e98fbe7c3d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
>> @@ -168,11 +168,11 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(debug_support, "Enable debug command support");
>>   */
>>  #define LENOVO_CERT_THUMBPRINT_GUID "C59119ED-1C0D-4806-A8E9-59AA318176C4"
>>  
>> -#define TLMI_POP_PWD (1 << 0)
>> -#define TLMI_PAP_PWD (1 << 1)
>> -#define TLMI_HDD_PWD (1 << 2)
>> -#define TLMI_SYS_PWD (1 << 3)
>> -#define TLMI_CERT    (1 << 7)
>> +#define TLMI_POP_PWD (1 << 0) /* Supervisor */
>> +#define TLMI_PAP_PWD (1 << 1) /* Power-on */
>> +#define TLMI_HDD_PWD (1 << 2) /* HDD/NVME */
>> +#define TLMI_SMP_PWD (1 << 6) /* System Management */
>> +#define TLMI_CERT    (1 << 7) /* Certificate Based */
>
> Whe you're adding Fixes tag, please make this change minimal by just 
> adding TLMI_SMP_PWD.
>
> The rest of these define changes are a good too but it's unrelated to the 
> actual fix so they should be in a separate patch. And once you move it 
> into own change, convert to BIT() while at it.
>

I was asked previously to clarify what SMP stood for so added the comment and it seemed odd to only clarify one and not the others.
Can I push back on this request. Doing two separate patches for just that doesn't make sense to me.

Thanks for the review
Mark