[PATCH 1/1] platform/x86/tuxedo: Add virtual LampArray for TUXEDO NB04 devices

[Werner Sembach]

Hi,

an additional question below

Am 27.09.24 um 08:59 schrieb Werner Sembach:
> Hi,
>
> Am 26.09.24 um 20:39 schrieb Armin Wolf:
>> Am 26.09.24 um 19:44 schrieb Werner Sembach:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> +// We don't know if the WMI API is stable and how unique the GUID is for 
>>> this ODM. To be on the safe
>>> +// side we therefore only run this driver on tested devices defined by this 
>>> list.
>>> +static const struct dmi_system_id tested_devices_dmi_table[] = {
>>> +    {
>>> +        // TUXEDO Sirius 16 Gen1
>>> +        .matches = {
>>> +            DMI_EXACT_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "TUXEDO"),
>>> +            DMI_EXACT_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "APX958"),
>>> +        },
>>> +    },
>>> +    {
>>> +        // TUXEDO Sirius 16 Gen2
>>> +        .matches = {
>>> +            DMI_EXACT_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "TUXEDO"),
>>> +            DMI_EXACT_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_NAME, "AHP958"),
>>> +        },
>>> +    },
>>> +    { }
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static int probe(struct wmi_device *wdev, const void __always_unused *context)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct tuxedo_nb04_wmi_driver_data_t *driver_data;
>>> +
>>> +    if (dmi_check_system(tested_devices_dmi_table))
>>> +        return -ENODEV;
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> please do this DMI check during module initialization. This avoids having an 
>> useless WMI driver
>> on unsupported machines and allows for marking tested_devices_dmi_table as 
>> __initconst.
I wonder how to do it since I don't use module_init manually but 
module_wmi_driver to register the module.
>>
>> Besides that, maybe a "force" module parameter for overriding the DMI 
>> checking could be
>> useful?

Considering the bricking potential i somewhat want for people to look in the 
source first, so i would not implementen a force module parameter.

Kind regards,

Werner