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> <CA+ASDXNeTp0z7M6rR62rJEa3tF52BYjXdodFTQvuR4b43o0e-Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+ASDXNeTp0z7M6rR62rJEa3tF52BYjXdodFTQvuR4b43o0e-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Date:   Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:50:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+ASDXPbnqRbw9EpTQ5uWt1ALh6h9dqggrEusXXaAOp46dp+Ag@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 5:43 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:
> 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...

Ah, that would appear to be recursion (cros_ec_query_all() ->
cros_ec_get_host_event_wake_mask() -> cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status() -> ...
cros_ec_query_all()), although that could only happen if the first
cros_ec_query_all() doesn't initialize 'proto_version' to something
besides EC_PROTO_VERSION_UNKNOWN. That is only possible if the EC
reports '0' back to us.

I might skip out on that particular refactor for the moment.

Brian