Bugzilla Bug 127453

I have encountered two issues with this module after switching to 2.6.16:

 - the first one is that inter_module* functions have finaly been removed from
Linux, but thinkpad module was still using them. I will attach a patch to
convert it to the EXPORT_SYMBOL scheme. I don't know whether this patch should
be applied unconditionnaly, or only for >=2.6.16 (should work with older
versions, sure, but why make the change if it is not required?), so i will
leave you integration to the src_unpack().

 - the second one is that the thinkpadpm code is no more used in thinkpad-5.9,
but the thinkpad module was still declaring an obsolete "enable_thinkpadpm"
parameter, leading to this error:
  # modprobe thinkpad
  FATAL: Error inserting thinkpad
(/lib/modules/2.6.16-archck1/thinkpad/thinkpad.ko): Invalid argument
  # dmesg | tail -n 1
  thinkpad: falsely claims to have parameter enable_thinkpadpm
Well, actually, this one i'm not sure whether it is specific to 2.6.16 kernel.
I've also switched to gcc4 recently, so maybe that's him who optimize-out an
unused variable, or something like that. I will report back later after trying
a 2.6.15 again. Anyway, the patch for this one is simple too: it drops any
mention of the obsolete parameter in the thinkpad module.

Created an attachment (id=83027) [edit]
thinkpad-5.9-remove-inter_module.patch

patch for issue #1

Created an attachment (id=83028) [edit]
thinkpad-5.9-remove-thinkpadpm-argument.patch

patch for issue #2

(In reply to comment #0)
>
> Well, actually, this one i'm not sure whether it is specific to 2.6.16 kernel.

I have just tested on 2.6.15, and the unpatched module doesn't make kernel
complain about this parameter. So it seems to be specific to 2.6.16, although i
don't know where the difference comes from.

I have also tested both patches on 2.6.15, and they seems to work fine there
too. So i still don't have a clue whether they should be applied only for
`kernel_is gt 2 6 16` or not.

Tested here on my Thinkpad 600E, thanks for the patches, committed to CVS,
please let me know if there are any problems.  Will try to 5.9-r1 stable in 2-3
weeks.

(In reply to comment #4)
> Tested here on my Thinkpad 600E, thanks for the patches, committed to CVS,
> please let me know if there are any problems.  Will try to 5.9-r1 stable in 2-3
> weeks.
> 

Have you forgotten to stable the new version or are problems?

Yes I had forgotten to request stabelization.  Will open a bug shortly, unless
you get to it before I get the chance

TGL: I'm not kernel hacker, thus may be I'm wrong but it seems to me that it's
better to use
  pxint_doSmapi = (pxint_do_t)symbol_request( smapi_do );
instead of, suggested in your patch
  pxint_doSuperio = (pxint_do_t)try_then_request_module( 
  __symbol_get("superio_do") , _szSuperioName );

symbol_request is defined include/linux/module.h and it's definition is very
similar to the code you wrote, but there are some differences. FEX, it uses
symbol_get instead of __symbol_get and thus takes into account
MODULE_SYMBOL_PREFIX. What do you think about this?