Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-199639-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
From: Ben Walsh <ben@jubnut.com>
To: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>
Cc: Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>, Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
 "Dustin L. Howett" <dustin@howett.net>, Kieran Levin <ktl@frame.work>,
 Thomas =?utf-8?Q?Wei=C3=9Fschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>, Mario Limonciello
 <mario.limonciello@amd.com>, chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] platform/chrome: cros_ec_lpc: MEC access can
 return error code
In-Reply-To: <Zl2NMG3NdQHPfe7s@google.com>
References: <20240603063834.5580-1-ben@jubnut.com>
 <20240603063834.5580-2-ben@jubnut.com> <Zl2NMG3NdQHPfe7s@google.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 20:26:19 +0100
Message-ID: <87le3l25gk.fsf@jubnut.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 07:38:30AM +0100, Ben Walsh wrote:
>> @@ -425,8 +469,8 @@ static int cros_ec_lpc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  	 */
>>  	cros_ec_lpc_ops.read = cros_ec_lpc_mec_read_bytes;
>>  	cros_ec_lpc_ops.write = cros_ec_lpc_mec_write_bytes;
>> -	cros_ec_lpc_ops.read(EC_LPC_ADDR_MEMMAP + EC_MEMMAP_ID, 2, buf);
>> -	if (buf[0] != 'E' || buf[1] != 'C') {
>> +	ret = cros_ec_lpc_ops.read(EC_LPC_ADDR_MEMMAP + EC_MEMMAP_ID, 2, buf);
>> +	if (ret < 0 || buf[0] != 'E' || buf[1] != 'C') {
>
> Slight concern: if the read failed (-EBUSY, because of the lock contention
> failed for example), does it still need to probe for non-MEC devices?

That's a very good point! Negative ret here means there's really an
error, not just "no MEC".

I think it's better to return early with the return code (not -ENODEV)
in these cases.

>> @@ -436,9 +480,9 @@ static int cros_ec_lpc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  		/* Re-assign read/write operations for the non MEC variant */
>>  		cros_ec_lpc_ops.read = cros_ec_lpc_read_bytes;
>>  		cros_ec_lpc_ops.write = cros_ec_lpc_write_bytes;
>> -		cros_ec_lpc_ops.read(ec_lpc->mmio_memory_base + EC_MEMMAP_ID, 2,
>> -				     buf);
>> -		if (buf[0] != 'E' || buf[1] != 'C') {
>> +		ret = cros_ec_lpc_ops.read(ec_lpc->mmio_memory_base + EC_MEMMAP_ID, 2,
>> +					   buf);
>> +		if (ret < 0 || buf[0] != 'E' || buf[1] != 'C') {
>>  			dev_err(dev, "EC ID not detected\n");
>>  			return -ENODEV;
>
> Similar concern here: should `ret < 0` see as a -ENODEV?

As above, I think it should "return ret".