User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Re: [PATCH 00/12] ThinkPad embedded controller and hdaps drivers (version 2)

From:  "Shem Multinymous" <>
To:  "Andrew Morton" <>
Subject:  Re: [PATCH 00/12] ThinkPad embedded controller and hdaps drivers (version 2)
Date:  Fri, 11 Aug 2006 02:26:54 +0300
Cc:  Robert Love <>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,,, Pavel Machek <>, Jean Delvare <>
Archive-link:  Article, Thread

On 8/10/06, Andrew Morton <> 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

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


[1] and in particular

Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo

(Log in to post comments)

Copyright © 2006, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds