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: <20220126180020.15873-1-dustin@howett.net> <20220126180020.15873-3-dustin@howett.net>
 <YfLqloFQpF7bURGi@chromium.org> <CA+BfgNKS_uGZVh5K=O5Q-Brj-wWyg+gn1Nx4-Gr5OVb46ZFi=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <YfLxw9r6VvbxijRM@chromium.org>
In-Reply-To: <YfLxw9r6VvbxijRM@chromium.org>
From:   Dustin Howett <dustin@howett.net>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jan 2022 21:15:53 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+BfgNKCYT6EnOK1JTsy+AJCzZ+p6UbYD+SgBZ=ANHCV1pC7oA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] platform/chrome: cros_ec_lpcs: reserve the MEC LPC
 I/O ports first
To:     Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
        Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@google.com>,
        Michael Niksa <michael.niksa@live.com>, aaboagye@chromium.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 1:25 PM Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> What source do Framework laptop ECs (MECs?) compile their EC firmware
> from?

They just released their source here:
https://github.com/FrameworkComputer/EmbeddedController

FWIW, this series was written before they went open, and you're not
likely to see a similar construct
over there.

> Yeah, I wasn't thinking about userland i/o port access, but just having
> this behaviour/different I/O port mapping described in the EC code base
> too.

Happy to submit this over there as well. Are cros_ec_commands.h (here)
and ec_commands.h (there)
intended to be kept in 1:1 sync?

As well, is this a blocking concern?

Thanks!
d