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> <CABXOdTfvNBuaEx-vTU2MqNF_EmULJu=506oUtd29kN=FAPswBQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABXOdTfvNBuaEx-vTU2MqNF_EmULJu=506oUtd29kN=FAPswBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Date:   Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:43:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+ASDXNeTp0z7M6rR62rJEa3tF52BYjXdodFTQvuR4b43o0e-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: check for missing EC_CMD_HOST_EVENT_GET_WAKE_MASK
To:     Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>
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 2:13 PM Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:50 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:
> > 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.

Sure, I can use EOPNOTSUPP in v2.

BTW, the error code is completely internal to cros_ec_proto.c in my
patch, so it seems even less-related to your series, unless I got
refactor cros_ec_get_host_event_wake_mask() to use
cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status() instead of send_command(). I'm actually not
sure why we don't do that, now that I think about it...

So WDYT? Should I rebase on your eventual v3 and refactor to
cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status()? Or (re)submit this first, and add one more
cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status() usage for you to tweak in your series?

I don't mind a lot either way, except that I would like to port this
to older kernels soon.

Brian