Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: tpacpi: Mark charging LEDs as safe

[Rong Zhang <i@rong.moe>]

Hi Josh,

On Sat, 2026-11-07 at 13:42 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Rong Zhang wrote:
> > On Sat, 2026-11-07 at 12:49 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > If that is the primary concern, would you accept a DMI-identity-based
> > > allowlist?
> > 
> > I don't think you need this if we take the module parameter approach.
> > Usually we don't want to introduce a infinitely-growing DMI quirk table
> > for some niche use cases.
> 
> The module parameter approach seems fine, as long as it doesn't taint the
> kernel to use.

I will go ahead with the taintless module parameter approach as long as
Mark is not opposed to it.

Thanks,
Rong

> 
> > Meanwhile, I can't totally trust your LLM's conclusion.
> 
> Extremely valid.
> 
> > The ACPI part may
> > be correct as understanding decompiled ASL code is not hard for an LLM,
> > while reverse-engineering EC firmware is completely on another dimension.
> 
> As it turns out, the EC firmware appeared to be unencrypted ARM Thumb code,
> and LLMs are pretty good at disassembling these days, too. But still, full
> support for "can't totally trust". The ideal solution would be if someone
> from Lenovo could confirm the conclusion.