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

[Mark Pearson]

On Mon, May 29, 2023, at 11:50 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2023, Mark Pearson wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I did not mean removing TLMI_SMP_PWD's comment from this patch just to add 
> it in the another but the comments to the other bits which should go into 
> their own patch. The thing here is that fixes should be made minimal to 
> comply with stable rules.
>
OK....seems odd to me to be honest,  but not something I'd lose sleep over. 
I'll do that in amongst all the other changes.

Thanks
Mark