Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-209370-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:23:24 +0200
From: Thomas =?utf-8?Q?Wei=C3=9Fschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>
To: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>
Cc: Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>, 
	Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>, Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>, 
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, 
	Robert Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>, chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>, 
	Dustin Howett <dustin@howett.net>, Stephen Horvath <s.horvath@outlook.com.au>, 
	Rajas Paranjpe <paranjperajas@gmail.com>, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev, 
	Matt Hartley <matt.hartley@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: Introduce
 cros_ec_cmd_versions()
Message-ID: <f2a361aa-a256-41a5-8100-703e40df975d@t-8ch.de>
References: <20240610-cros_ec-charge-control-v3-0-135e37252094@weissschuh.net>
 <20240610-cros_ec-charge-control-v3-3-135e37252094@weissschuh.net>
 <ZmfvhvcjTbjOSp4f@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ZmfvhvcjTbjOSp4f@google.com>

On 2024-06-11 06:32:38+0000, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 05:51:08PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > If the command is not supported at all the EC returns
> > -EINVAL/EC_RES_INVALID_PARAMS.
> > 
> > This error is translated into an empty version mask as that is easier to
> > handle for callers and they don't need to know about the error details.
> 
> I'm not sure whether the behavior is what we want or not as existing
> EC_CMD_GET_CMD_VERSIONS usages don't have it.

At least the caller of cros_ec_get_host_command_version_mask() expects
it:

ret = cros_ec_get_host_command_version_mask(..., &ver_mask);
if (ret < 0 || ver_mask == 0)
...

ver_mask == 0 will never happen as in that case -EINVAL would have been
returned.

Others, like cros_ec_cec_get_write_cmd_version(), expect the current
semantic of ver_mask != 0 but log spurious errors in case of -EINVAL.
cros_pchg_cmd_ver_check(), works with both semantics, but currently also
logs a spurious error message.

To me the new semantic looks more obvious and much easier to handle.
For each command version a bit is set. no command versions -> no bits.