Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200722015732.1720840-1-briannorris@chromium.org>
 <20200722015732.1720840-2-briannorris@chromium.org> <5ebf1534-8045-9894-9c1c-b92b9c6d8479@collabora.com>
 <CA+ASDXMk7Tg7Lwqt8Pv5BQT0J40dpJtqrL9TAn8y5Nj3TCkj6Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+ASDXMk7Tg7Lwqt8Pv5BQT0J40dpJtqrL9TAn8y5Nj3TCkj6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:13:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CABXOdTfvNBuaEx-vTU2MqNF_EmULJu=506oUtd29kN=FAPswBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: check for missing EC_CMD_HOST_EVENT_GET_WAKE_MASK
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc:     Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:50 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 3:19 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra
> <enric.balletbo@collabora.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > Thank you for your patch, I'll take a look soon but I'd like to ask if you can
> > join the discussion with this patchset [1], specially this one [2]. We're trying
> > to match EC errors with standard linux kernel errors because we think can be
> > helpful.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/cover/1276734/
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1276738/
>
> Hi Enric,
>
> Thanks, I'll do that. I do wonder sometimes how non-maintainers should
> best support "community" around these things, for subsystems that
> don't have a dedicated mailing list and are therefore sent only to
> maintainers + LKML-fire-hose. I could probably subscribe to LKML and
> filter it, but something tells me my mailbox will still manage to
> explode somehow... Anyway, I digress.
>
> Other than perhaps taking a lesson not to propagate -ENOTSUPP, I don't
> think this series should block on that, as this is a bugfix IMO.
>

My patch will return -EOPNOTSUPP for EC_RES_INVALID_COMMAND, so maybe
you could do the same. In my latest version (not yet submitted) I
extracted the conversion into a separate function, so if your patch is
accepted now I can just add another patch on top of it to start using
that function.

Thanks,
Guenter