Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-170240-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 19:43:30 +0200
From: Thomas =?utf-8?Q?Wei=C3=9Fschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>
To: "Limonciello, Mario" <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>, Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>, 
	Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>, Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev, "Dustin L. Howett" <dustin@howett.net>, 
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] platform/chrome: cros_ec_framework_laptop: new driver
Message-ID: <e716716e-87fe-46f5-8ea9-5f649f1da11b@t-8ch.de>
References: <20240505-cros_ec-framework-v1-0-402662d6276b@weissschuh.net>
 <613369f9-42c5-4a59-b83f-45bd1773ffe4@t-8ch.de>
 <a7ae8fc0-5e53-487a-86c6-f49dc6623688@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <a7ae8fc0-5e53-487a-86c6-f49dc6623688@amd.com>

On 2024-05-06 08:09:07+0000, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/6/2024 1:09 AM, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > On 2024-05-05 22:56:33+0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > Framework Laptops are using embedded controller firmware based on the
> > > ChromeOS EC project.
> > > In addition to the standard upstream commands some vendor-specific
> > > commands are implemented.
> > > 
> > > Add a driver that implements battery charge thresholds using these
> > > custom commands.
> > 
> > It turns out that standard ChromesOS EC defines EC_CMD_CHARGE_CONTROL.
> > The kernel headers however only define v1 of the protocol, which is very
> > limited.
> > 
> > But in the upstream firmware repo there is a v3 which is much better.
> > 
> > The Framework laptop only implements v2 which is also fine.
> > Given that v3 was only introduced late last year, it seems better to
> > stick to v2 anyways for now.
> > 
> > So please disregard Patch 2, I'll see on how to use this via a normal
> > cros_ec driver.
> > 
> > There are some other Framework-only features that will use Patch 1,
> > so feedback for that would still be good.
> 
> What other kinds of features do you have in mind?

There are at least fan and privacy switch reporting in which im interested.
But fan reporting also has a standard command which I'll try to use first.

And then there are many others I'm personally not interested in:
Fingerprint LED configuration, Intrusion Detection, "Standalone mode",
some diagnostics, etc.

Especially as they can also be handled from userspace.

> Considering your above finding I think it's better to put patch 1 into the
> series of "other framework only features" that will use it so it's clearer
> if it's the best way or not.

Agreed, that is what I tried to express.

> [..]

Thomas