Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221221185540.2265771-1-robbarnes@google.com>
 <CACeCKafZu=46NE--r9W-wtJWAhj8=s46yCBO4N4u5nt4COqYAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+Dqm30XF=wDVcdUabbHySp-fwf+zFNqXpdYDW3bDTOwRbkiZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACeCKafGg5=1MQQdCtXDm-3LE2VsixHPsUDngRwQXUvAwQ=u=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+Dqm33CAjWv=DFhp0+iee2-EugJzjWOYcyfieaULq2H9egheA@mail.gmail.com> <CACeCKad+cdVLi8Qq1R2j+jkRkyF6Mktu_64oq4Ewi0TWXSKJ-g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACeCKad+cdVLi8Qq1R2j+jkRkyF6Mktu_64oq4Ewi0TWXSKJ-g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Rob Barnes <robbarnes@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Jan 2023 18:19:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+Dqm33ZE77nqfNcDA91noZtrx_35G=usCXd5CiCi8HbtceZjg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/cros_ec: Handle CrOS EC panics
To:     Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.org>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
        chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dtor@chromium.org, Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 4:28 PM Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.org> wrote=
:
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 3:15 PM Rob Barnes <robbarnes@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 5:38 PM Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.org> =
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 3:55 PM Rob Barnes <robbarnes@google.com> wro=
te:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 12:23 PM Prashant Malani <pmalani@chromium.=
org> wrote:
> > > > >
> >
> > >
> > > It's just I find having a notifier for a single use case overkill(eve=
n
> > > 2 would be fine); one could get away with exposing a method
> > > in cros_typec_debugfs via a local .h file (it can compile to a stub i=
f
> > > cros_typec_debugfs is not compiled to the kernel);
> > > the LPC code can then just call that method instead of invoking a not=
ifier.
> >
> > My first implementation did make a direct call to cros_ec_debugfs.c,
> > but an internal reviewer recommended using an event notifier instead.
> > So I'm histent to go back to a direct call.
> >
> > There may be other sub drivers that want to handle EC panics. So I
> > think keeping this as a separate notifier makes sense given the
> > constraints.
>
> The issue with that reasoning vis-=C3=A0-vis your implementation is that
> the panic notifier is tied to cros_ec_debugfs. What if another
> (sub)-driver wants to use the
> panic notifier to do something, but that system doesn't have CONFIG_DEBUG=
FS
> enabled?

There isn't a dependency between cros_ec_debugfs.c and
`panic_notifier` inside `cros_ec_proto.h`. So (sub)-drivers can handle
EC panics when CONFIG_DEBUGFS is not enabled.

>
> Having a direct/explicit dependency avoids that issue; LPC depends on
> debugfs being compiled
> to have the log printed out (a stub is used when debugfs is not
> enabled), but nothing else
> relies on debugfs for a panic notifier.
>
> BR,
>
> -Prashant