Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751898AbaGCGjH (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jul 2014 02:39:07 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]:58003 "EHLO mail-ie0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750824AbaGCGjF (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jul 2014 02:39:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 07:38:58 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Doug Anderson Cc: Wolfram Sang , Mark Brown , Vincent Palatin , Bill Richardson , Randall Spangler , Simon Glass , Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= , Stephan van Schaik , Olof Johansson , Samuel Ortiz , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mfd: cros_ec: Use the proper size when looking at the cros_ec_i2c result Message-ID: <20140703063858.GD17665@lee--X1> References: <1403898973-19571-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> <1403898973-19571-3-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> <20140702072338.GC10311@lee--X1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 02 Jul 2014, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > >> We know how many bytes the EC should be sending us (which is also the > >> number of bytes transferred) and also how many bytes the EC actually > >> wanted to send to us. When computing the checksum and copying back > >> data let's make sure we take the lesser of the two of those. We'll > >> also complain if the EC tried to send us too many bytes. The EC > >> sending us too few bytes is legit for when we send the EC an invalid > >> command. > >> > >> This is based on similar code in cros_ec_spi. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson > >> --- > >> drivers/mfd/cros_ec_i2c.c | 15 ++++++++++++--- > >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > Acked-by: Lee Jones > > > > Is this patch orthogonal i.e. can it be applied without the other two > > patches? > > Yes. If patch 3/3 had worked out then it would have required patch #1 > for proper functioning and patch #2 (this patch) to avoid an ugly > error message in the log. ...but patch #1 and this patch both can > stand on their own and can be applied. Very well, patch applied than. Clause: There is a chance that this patch might not be seen in -next for ~24-48hrs. If it's not there by 72hrs, feel free to poke. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/