Hi Dmitry:
1.
In this function elan_get_fwinfo().
+static int elan_get_fwinfo(u16 ic_type, u8 iap_version, u8 pattern,
+ u16 *validpage_count, u32 *signature_address,
+ u16 *page_size)
{
- switch (ic_type) {
+ u16 type = pattern >= 0x01 ? ic_type : iap_version;
+
+ switch (type) {
This iap_version in pattern0 is read from this command
ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION_CMD_OLD ,it is not from this command
ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION.
So u16 type = pattern >= 0x01 ? ic_type : iap_version; <- wrong
2. In this "static int elan_i2c_prepare_fw_update(struct i2c_client *client,
u16 ic_type, u8 iap_version)" function.
The ic is old pattern must be modify correct ic_type. (cmd is
ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION)
THANKS
-----Original Message-----
From: jingle [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 4:20 PM
To: 'Dmitry Torokhov'
Cc: 'linux-kernel'; 'linux-input'; 'phoenix'; 'josh.chen'; 'kai.heng.feng'
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] Input: elan_i2c - Modify the IAP related functio n
for page sizes 128, 512 bytes.
Hi Dmitry:
In this "static int elan_i2c_prepare_fw_update(struct i2c_client *client,
u16 ic_type, u8 iap_version)" function If IC is old_pattern, it must be
modified to iap_version
-> u16 type = pattern >= 0x01 ? ic_type : iap_version;
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: Dmitry Torokhov [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 2:10 PM
To: jingle.wu
Cc: linux-kernel; linux-input; phoenix; josh.chen; kai.heng.feng
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Input: elan_i2c - Modify the IAP related functio n
for page sizes 128, 512 bytes.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 06:27:19PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Jingle,
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 02:15:23PM +0800, jingle.wu wrote:
> > HI Dmitry:
> >
> > Just to confirm, the older devices (I assume that pattern 0 means
> > older) have version command that is numerically higher than the one
> > for the newer (pattern >= 1) devices?
> >
> > >> Yes, Pattern 1, 2 are newer devices.
> >
> > > @@ -324,7 +342,14 @@ static int elan_i2c_get_sm_version(struct
i2c_client *client,
> > > return error;
> > > }
> > > *version = val[0];
> > > - *ic_type = val[1];
> > > +
> > > + error = elan_i2c_read_cmd(client, ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION_CMD,
val);
> > > + if (error) {
> > > + dev_err(&client->dev, "failed to get ic type: %d\n",
> > > + error);
> > > + return error;
> > > + }
> >
> > Could you please tell me why this chunk is needed?
> > >> Modify the old pattern IC firmware read the correct ic_type.
> >
> > In the elan_i2c_core.c, move this code to elan_i2c_i2c.c.
> > static int elan_query_device_info(struct elan_tp_data *data) {
> > .....
> > if (data->pattern == 0x01)
> > ic_type = data->ic_type;
> > else
> > ic_type = data->iap_version;
> > .....
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> I am concerned that unconditionally substituting iap_version for
> ic_type for "pattern 0" devices will break check in
> elan_check_ASUS_special_fw() as it operates on the ic_type returned by
> ETP_I2C_OSM_VERSION_CMD and not iap_version.
I split the firmware handling code into a few patches and uploaded it to a
new elan-i2c branch:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dtor/input.git elan-i2c
Please take a look and let me know if I messed it up or not. I will be
looking at the new packet format next.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
Hi Jingle,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 04:31:58PM +0800, jingle wrote:
> Hi Dmitry:
>
> 1.
>
> In this function elan_get_fwinfo().
>
> +static int elan_get_fwinfo(u16 ic_type, u8 iap_version, u8 pattern,
> + u16 *validpage_count, u32 *signature_address,
> + u16 *page_size)
> {
> - switch (ic_type) {
> + u16 type = pattern >= 0x01 ? ic_type : iap_version;
> +
> + switch (type) {
>
> This iap_version in pattern0 is read from this command
> ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION_CMD_OLD ,it is not from this command
> ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION.
> So u16 type = pattern >= 0x01 ? ic_type : iap_version; <- wrong
>
> 2. In this "static int elan_i2c_prepare_fw_update(struct i2c_client *client,
> u16 ic_type, u8 iap_version)" function.
> The ic is old pattern must be modify correct ic_type. (cmd is
> ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION)
I see. It looks like there is some confusion on my part between IAP
version, IC type, and the commands that we want to use. Please let me
know if I understand this correctly:
- For patterns >=1 (newer)
IAP version is retrieved with ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION_CMD
IC type is fetched with ETP_I2C_IC_TYPE_CMD
Version comes from ETP_I2C_NSM_VERSION_CMD
- For pattern 0 (old)
Before your patches
IAP version was using ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION_CMD (and you are saying
it is wrong)
Version comes from 1st byte of ETP_I2C_OSM_VERSION_CMD
IC type comes from 2nd byte of ETP_I2C_OSM_VERSION_CMD (and you are
saying it is some other bit of data - what is it then?)
After your patches
IAP version is retrieved with ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION_CMD_OLD
Version comes from 1st byte of ETP_I2C_OSM_VERSION_CMD
IC type is retrieved with ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION_CMD (should we rename
it then?)
So the difference is where the the IC type is coming from for old
patterns. However, as I mentioned, we have the following body of code:
static int elan_check_ASUS_special_fw(struct elan_tp_data *data)
{
if (data->ic_type == 0x0E) {
switch (data->product_id) {
case 0x05 ... 0x07:
case 0x09:
case 0x13:
return true;
}
} else if (data->ic_type == 0x08 && data->product_id == 0x26) {
/* ASUS EeeBook X205TA */
return true;
}
return false;
}
And before your patches ic_type here would be the 2nd byte of response
to ETP_I2C_OSM_VERSION_CMD for older devices and my concern that
replacing it with data from ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION_CMD would break these
checks.
We need to reconcile what we have in this function with what you are
proposing for firmware update code.
Thanks,
Dmitry