Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] platform/x86: lenovo-wmi-other: Limit adding attributes to supported devices

[Mark Pearson]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2026, at 7:20 PM, Derek J. Clark wrote:
> On February 17, 2026 3:54:09 PM PST, Mark Pearson 
> <mpearson-lenovo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>On Sun, Feb 15, 2026, at 1:12 AM, Derek J. Clark wrote:
>>> Adds lwmi_is_attr_01_supported, and only creates the attribute subfolder
>>> if the attribute is supported by the hardware. Due to some poorly
>>> implemented BIOS, this is a multi-step sequence of events. This is
>>> because:
>>> - Some BIOS support getting the capability data from custom mode (0xff),
>>>   while others only support it in no-mode (0x00).
>>> - Similarly, some BIOS support get/set for the current value from custom
>>>   mode (0xff), while others only support it in no-mode (0x00).
>>> - Some BIOS report capability data for a method that is not fully
>>>   implemented.
>>> - Some BIOS have methods fully implemented, but no complimentary
>>>   capability data.
>>>
>>> To ensure we only expose fully implemented methods with corresponding
>>> capability data, we check each outcome before reporting that an
>>> attribute can be supported.
>>>
>>
>>The Legion's aren't in the Linux program (with an asterisk for the Legion Go/Go2) - but if there's anywhere it's tracked or highlighted which platforms differ/have issues let me know. Not sure how widespread the issues is?
>>
>>I can try and let the Legion team know that there are platforms which (likely) aren't following the internal specs. It might be possible to improve things for future platforms?
>>
>>Mark
>
> It's a mixture of different generations and models with different 
> issues, I'm not really tracking it anywhere. Part of the issue is the 
> spec has added/updated methods over time and the deprecated ones are 
> still being used by hardware out in the world. I think this pattern is 
> fairly good for most things. TBS I've recently found (from testers) 
> that some things just need dedicated methods instead of the generic 
> macros (CPU/GPU OC status for example) so I'll drop any of those in the 
> series for now and add them back later. All in all IDK if there is much 
> value in tracking these issues outside bug reports, as fixing them 
> would likely require BIOS updates for hardware that is 2-4 generations 
> old at this point and I highly doubt Lenovo intends to do something 
> like that.
>
> It's a fairly complicated and evolving spec, so my goal is to be at 
> least 95% compatible. I don't think we'll be at 100% ever due to the 
> wide array of different hardware that's available. I.e. the latest spec 
> has ARM specific capdata as well so we may need to eventually move the 
> driver to somewhere else, maybe platform/wmi? That's a discussion for 
> later though as I have no experience with DT/ARM or a device that has 
> it.
>
Got it - thanks!
(and yeah - chances of getting changes done to older platforms is.....small)
Mark