MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211122212850.321542-1-pauk.denis@gmail.com> <20211122212850.321542-3-pauk.denis@gmail.com>
 <CAHp75Vfg7LKX-21+b6f5c34G4Y=ZUqrWRbfDt_quCiJe+By-Ww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB95QASDiwM+-AwPgGfc7dP=Ctm0s2WP4xrapJzNHJ22B9foAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75VeO2mz7wJpuKdrErnYcw-dUOBs9W4FzA6MkgCQLr0eQUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB95QAT_b8Wef+4wN-H8dKZXxgnznqOk5J0fMuL2XJLhob7d9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b7616187-87d8-c87f-8f66-d5936a33395f@roeck-us.net> <CAB95QAQ2vpXFxZC0G6ogbpk+rDzGMN7N8-RaUX9w_U5bQ1WGMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75Vdi8ujoC5LTYqNmiWe1dTxrYRQKS+YtZE921d-6CZTs=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211125222526.405ce775@netbook-debian> <CAB95QAQnU8t4uY17mO9edEd9jktariU_RcZk_1Jdevfr-o0Gnw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB95QAQnU8t4uY17mO9edEd9jktariU_RcZk_1Jdevfr-o0Gnw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Nov 2021 23:52:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfWnLV29FpJ_FdJg+j3tu9QQzbPAs6OOjZ-3Fdqw8SDOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] hwmon: (nct6775) Implement custom lock by ACPI mutex.
To:     Eugene Shalygin <eugene.shalygin@gmail.com>
Cc:     Denis Pauk <pauk.denis@gmail.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
        thomas@weissschuh.net, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>,
        linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:33 PM Eugene Shalygin
<eugene.shalygin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 21:25, Denis Pauk <pauk.denis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I would like to propose to leave the current name of the driver and add
> > the same logic as in the current patch. So when we know the exact name
> > of acpi mutex - code will use such mutex for lock and directly read EC
> > memory region. In case if we don't know the exact mutex name/path or for
> > some reason ASUS decides to change UEFI code - code will use WMI
> > methods. In such a case, adding or checking a new motherboard will
> > require only adding a minimal list of well known registers without
> > disassembling UEFI code.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Sounds reasonable to me, but nevertheless I think dropping the "wmi"
> part from the driver name would make the name clearer with the
> proposed functional change.

We don't do changes for something which is not yet in the kernel or
about to be there. My proposal stays the same, sorry.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko