From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354DEC7EE23 for ; Mon, 29 May 2023 15:42:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229992AbjE2Pl7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 May 2023 11:41:59 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38426 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229806AbjE2Pl5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 May 2023 11:41:57 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78394A8; Mon, 29 May 2023 08:41:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1685374916; x=1716910916; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:mime-version; bh=w/u+IjLUbY+uBycEW2YEaZDefdA9TPsQohr+akmnCn0=; b=VikxalKXb2CHGaAvszgPtu0N+Ov5SkINqwpxt5weh838q8TeOP3T8JlW BMrgpB3G2yEaImuj0nIyMv7HdWAlTzq5vKtP5XnSc4dP5TzFHS+MbOacD 1IsvqsgivDjAt1/7rn6D0BiqyCeKz1RxWXXQ96Axacyio8+lfXk6xaHME Mr2ze3wdgF2OJ1quFrsmO2aUQxxx8gP5nNXObvsu52Gyt/YKjQD/8aR03 nL+9KX09H9qVKaVb/r/zUApGAm2BrO1wH1LSIF0kBMoodxVANAC5BAt2W QTuQmUkjCXGY6uqmuRYdlbft8i7RvNsOdRSs/VcrAa0uL+/jDtjjvepWl A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10725"; a="382986158" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.00,201,1681196400"; d="scan'208";a="382986158" Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 May 2023 08:41:50 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10725"; a="771203503" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.00,201,1681196400"; d="scan'208";a="771203503" Received: from btaubert-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.55.237]) by fmsmga008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 May 2023 08:41:48 -0700 Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 18:41:45 +0300 (EEST) From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ilpo_J=E4rvinen?= To: Mark Pearson cc: Hans de Goede , "markgross@kernel.org" , "platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org" , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] platform/x86: think-lmi: Correct NVME password handling In-Reply-To: <709df78f-4313-460a-87da-f4d302ed8912@app.fastmail.com> Message-ID: <2796a7d0-8010-ab14-23a-9f69ee9d465@linux.intel.com> References: <20230526171658.3886-1-mpearson-lenovo@squebb.ca> <20230526171658.3886-3-mpearson-lenovo@squebb.ca> <709df78f-4313-460a-87da-f4d302ed8912@app.fastmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-1210459766-1685374910=:2737" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-1210459766-1685374910=:2737 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Mon, 29 May 2023, Mark Pearson wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2023, at 8:03 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Fri, 26 May 2023, Mark Pearson wrote: > > > >> NVME passwords identifier have been standardised across the Lenovo > >> systems and now use udrp and adrp (user and admin level) instead of > >> unvp and mnvp. > >> > >> This should apparently be backwards compatible. > >> > >> Also cleaned up so the index is set to a default of 1 rather than 0 > >> as this just makes more sense (there is no device 0). > > > > These two sound entirely separate changes. If that's the case, please > > make own patch from the send change. > > Ack. It was all related to the index setting and seemed trivial so I > lumped together but I can split. This patch series is turning into a > good learning exercise for my git skills :) (which are limited) > > > Hmm, index_store() still allows 0, is that also related here? Please check > > also ABI documentation as index default seems to be mentioned there as > > well. > > > > I'd rather not limit it so 0 isn't allowed in case our BIOS team does > something weird in the future; but right now 1 is the default so it > makes more sense. Sure, do what you feel makes sense here. I was just pointing out the perceived inconsistency in case it wasn't intentional. It might be useful to add one sentence into changelog about the reasoning so it can be found easier later on (effectively the paragraph you wrote above with small tweaks is enough I think). -- i. --8323329-1210459766-1685374910=:2737--