Re: [PATCH 0/9] platform/x86: lenovo-wmi-{other,capdata,helpers}: Improve robustness on buggy firmware

[Ilpo Järvinen]

On Wed, 7 Oct 2026, Derek J. Clark wrote:

> On October 7, 2026 11:30:00 AM PDT, Rong Zhang <i@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >Hi Mark, Armin,
> >
> >于 2026年9月29日 GMT+08:00 01:53:18，Rong Zhang <i@xxxxxxxx> 写道：
> >> Hi Mark, 
> >> 
> >> Thanks for the information. 
> >> 
> >> 于 2026年9月29日 GMT+08:00 00:04:14，Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@xxxxxxxxx> 写道：
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > On Sat, Sep 26, 2026, at 11:01 PM, Rong Zhang wrote:
> >> > > Hi Navon,
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks a lot for your test. 
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 于 2026年9月27日 GMT+08:00 05:04:15，Navon John Lukose 
> >> > > <navonjohnlukose@xxxxxxxxx> 写道：
> >> > >> Tested on a Yoga Pro 7 14IAH10 (83KF, BIOS QGCN35WW). Neither mainline
> >> > >> nor the series binds here. This firmware has no
> >> > >> LENOVO_CAPABILITY_DATA_01 in _WDG at all, so no component ever
> >> > >> registers for that match and lwmi_om_master_bind() never runs. Skipping
> >> > >> the match for GUIDs the firmware doesn't declare fixes it:
> >> > >> 
> >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/wmi-capdata.c b/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/wmi-capdata.c
> >> > >> index 805e36ef7..d64520be1 100644
> >> > >> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/wmi-capdata.c
> >> > >> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/lenovo/wmi-capdata.c
> >> > >> @@ -76,11 +76,13 @@ enum lwmi_cd_type {
> >> > >>  #define LWMI_CD_TABLE_ITEM(_type)		\
> >> > >>  	[_type] = {				\
> >> > >>  		.name = #_type,			\
> >> > >> +		.guid = _type##_GUID,		\
> >> > >>  		.type = _type,			\
> >> > >>  	}
> >> > >>  
> >> > >>  static const struct lwmi_cd_info {
> >> > >>  	const char *name;
> >> > >> +	const char *guid;
> >> > >>  	enum lwmi_cd_type type;
> >> > >>  } lwmi_cd_table[] = {
> >> > >>  	LWMI_CD_TABLE_ITEM(LENOVO_CAPABILITY_DATA_00),
> >> > >> @@ -166,6 +168,14 @@ void lwmi_cd_match_add_all(struct device *master, struct component_match **match
> >> > >>  		if (lwmi_cd_table[i].type == LENOVO_FAN_TEST_DATA)
> >> > >>  			continue;
> >> > >>  
> >> > >> +		/*
> >> > >> +		 * Some firmware does not declare every capdata GUID at all, in
> >> > >> +		 * which case no component would ever register for it and the
> >> > >> +		 * master could never bind.
> >> > >> +		 */
> >> > >> +		if (!wmi_has_guid(lwmi_cd_table[i].guid))
> >> > >> +			continue;
> >> > >
> >> > > This was exactly what I did in the earlier revision while I was 
> >> > > introducing the support for capdata00 and capdata_fan.
> >> > >
> >> > > The wmi_has_guid() approach was eventually replaced by the 
> >> > > sub-component approach, because the use of the former is strongly 
> >> > > discouraged.
> >> > >
> >> > > In the next revision I am going to convert capdata01 into a 
> >> > > sub-component, too. In this manner some heavy and complex work in the 
> >> > > series will become needless and can be simplified. While the 
> >> > > sub-component approach itself is complex, we've had the infrastructure 
> >> > > to make it work. Therefore wiring it up should be a trivial work.
> >> > >
> >> > > Mark, Derek,
> >> > >
> >> > > Do you know if there is any way to determine the existence of capdata01 
> >> > > using capdata00? 
> >> > >
> >> > Note that I can see I'm afraid
> >
> >So there is no way to determine the existence of capdata01 using capdata00, correct?
> >
> >> > 
> >> > I'm guessing the patch Armin posted on my thread "[RFC PATCH 5/7] platform/x86: think-lmi: Initial ThinkLMI v2 driver" to check if it exists won't help here?
> >> 
> >> After some consideration, it seems that we don't really need to determine the existence of capdata01 if we take the sub-component approach, thanks to the fact that every functionality either depends on capdata00 or depends on capdata01, but never both.
> >
> >Unfortunately, it turned out that it can't resolve the issue by simply converting capdata01 into a sub-component, unless a virtual device is also created to split the component matching list into two, which is more like a dirty workaround.
> >
> >So yeah, the series needs the wmidev_exists() patch from Armin. 
> > Considering that the ThinkLMI v2 series is probably still at the RFC 
> >stage, do you mind if I integrate the wmidev_exists() patch into my 
> > series? 
> 
> Rong/Mark,
> 
> My $0.02, I don't think it matters who sends it up. If Ilpo is okay with 
> it of course, both series should include it as a prerequisite 1/X and 
> whichever gets picked up first will get into next. Then that patch can 
> be omitted from the other series when it gets picked. That way both 
> series will build if you apply the mbox onto next until one is merged.

Hi,

For me it's fine either way:

1) Have the same patch in both series.

2) If we know for sure we need the API anyway, just add it as a standalone 
in advance.

I suppose 2 would be slightly simpler but it's up to you which way you 
prefer.

Lets not make things more complicated than they have to be. :-)

-- 
 i.