Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 11 Aug 2006 02:26:54 +0300 | From | "Shem Multinymous" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/12] ThinkPad embedded controller and hdaps drivers (version 2) |
| |
On 8/10/06, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > This situation is still a concern. From where did this additional register > information come? > > Was it reverse-engineered? If so, by whom and how can we satisfy ourselves > of this? > > Was it from published documents?
Here's a more detailed explanation:
All the low level LPC register access is publicly documented in the manual of the embedded controller. See [1] and in particular [2]. The submitted thinkpad_ec code just follows these specs (very defensively with and a lot of extra status checks, because some EC hangs were reported in older versions). The only remaining information is about the accelerometer-specific commands implemented by the firmware; the public APS spec [3] and the mainline code based on this already contain most of the this information, and a few corrections and extentions were gleaned from the reverse-engineered the firmware code [4]. If case you're wondering about the "opaque" function, hdaps_check_ec(), then note that it's just code from the original hdaps driver (following [3]) that's translated to use thinkpad_ec instead of direct IO port access.
> Was it improperly obtained from NDA'ed documentation?
Absolutely not. I've never signed any NDA remotely related to this. (and why I do so when the above sources already contain all the needed information?)
BTW, I can't help wondering: do you have a similarly detailed account for an appreciable fraction of the driver code in mainline?
> So hm. We're setting precedent here and we need Linus around to resolve > this. Perhaps we can ask "Shem" to reveal his true identity to Linus (and > maybe me) privately and then we proceed on that basis.
Sure, we can do this. Actually I've alredy e-mailed Linus to this effect several days ago, before realizing he's off-line.
> "each of the Signed-off-by:ers should know the identity of the others".
How following the DCO's chain-of-trust model?
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ can certify the below:
(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified - it. + it, and the legal identity of that person is known to me.
(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
Shem
[1]http://thinkwiki.org/wiki/Renesas_H8S/2161BV and in particular [2]http://documentation.renesas.com/eng/products/mpumcu/rej09b0300_2140bhm.pdf [3]http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/people/marksmith/tpaps.html [4]http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=20958 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |