linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] mfd: cros-ec: Introduce CEC commands and events definitions.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <22cfe7ea-ad86-080d-bfe8-dc8a410c69d9@baylibre.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 May 2018 11:35:27 +0200
From:   Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
To:     Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>, airlied@...ux.ie,
        hans.verkuil@...co.com, lee.jones@...aro.org, olof@...om.net,
        seanpaul@...gle.com
Cc:     sadolfsson@...gle.com, felixe@...gle.com, bleung@...gle.com,
        darekm@...gle.com, marcheu@...omium.org, fparent@...libre.com,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        eballetbo@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] mfd: cros-ec: Introduce CEC commands and events
 definitions.

On 24/05/2018 11:11, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On 24/05/18 10:54, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> The EC can expose a CEC bus, this patch adds the CEC related definitions
>> needed by the cros-ec-cec driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
>> Tested-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 85 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h
>> index cc0768e..ea9646f 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h
>> @@ -804,6 +804,8 @@ enum ec_feature_code {
>>  	EC_FEATURE_MOTION_SENSE_FIFO = 24,
>>  	/* EC has RTC feature that can be controlled by host commands */
>>  	EC_FEATURE_RTC = 27,
>> +	/* EC supports CEC commands */
>> +	EC_FEATURE_CEC = 35,
>>  };
>>  
>>  #define EC_FEATURE_MASK_0(event_code) (1UL << (event_code % 32))
>> @@ -2078,6 +2080,12 @@ enum ec_mkbp_event {
>>  	/* EC sent a sysrq command */
>>  	EC_MKBP_EVENT_SYSRQ = 6,
>>  
>> +	/* Notify the AP that something happened on CEC */
>> +	EC_MKBP_CEC_EVENT = 8,
>> +
>> +	/* Send an incoming CEC message to the AP */
>> +	EC_MKBP_EVENT_CEC_MESSAGE = 9,
>> +
>>  	/* Number of MKBP events */
>>  	EC_MKBP_EVENT_COUNT,
>>  };
>> @@ -2850,6 +2858,83 @@ struct ec_params_reboot_ec {
>>  
>>  /*****************************************************************************/
>>  /*
>> + * HDMI CEC commands
>> + *
>> + * These commands are for sending and receiving message via HDMI CEC
>> + */
>> +#define MAX_CEC_MSG_LEN 16
> 
> Can you rename this to EC_MAX_CEC_MSG_LEN? It is way too similar to the
> CEC_MAX_MSG_LEN defined in cec.h. Since this is a property of the EC hw/fw
> it makes sense to prefix it accordingly.

Yes, it will make sense.

> 
>> +
>> +/* CEC message from the AP to be written on the CEC bus */
>> +#define EC_CMD_CEC_WRITE_MSG 0x00B8
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct ec_params_cec_write - Message to write to the CEC bus
>> + * @msg: message content to write to the CEC bus
>> + */
>> +struct ec_params_cec_write {
>> +	uint8_t msg[MAX_CEC_MSG_LEN];
>> +} __packed;
>> +
>> +/* Set various CEC parameters */
>> +#define EC_CMD_CEC_SET 0x00BA
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct ec_params_cec_set - CEC parameters set
>> + * @cmd: parameter type, can be CEC_CMD_ENABLE or CEC_CMD_LOGICAL_ADDRESS
>> + * @enable: in case cmd is CEC_CMD_ENABLE, this field can be 0 to disable CEC
>> + * 	or 1 to enable CEC functionnality
>> + * @address: in case cmd is CEC_CMD_LOGICAL_ADDRESS, this field encodes the
>> + *	requested logical address between 0 and 15 or 0xff to unregister
>> + */
>> +struct ec_params_cec_set {
>> +	uint8_t cmd; /* enum cec_command */
>> +	union {
>> +		uint8_t enable;
>> +		uint8_t address;
>> +	};
>> +} __packed;
>> +
>> +/* Read various CEC parameters */
>> +#define EC_CMD_CEC_GET 0x00BB
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct ec_params_cec_get - CEC parameters get
>> + * @cmd: parameter type, can be CEC_CMD_ENABLE or CEC_CMD_LOGICAL_ADDRESS
>> + */
>> +struct ec_params_cec_get {
>> +	uint8_t cmd; /* enum cec_command */
>> +} __packed;
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct ec_response_cec_get - CEC parameters get response
>> + * @enable: in case cmd was CEC_CMD_ENABLE, this field will 0 if CEC is
>> + * 	disabled or 1 if CEC functionnality is enabled
>> + * @address: in case cmd was CEC_CMD_LOGICAL_ADDRESS, this will encode the
>> + *	configured logical address between 0 and 15 or 0xff if unregistered
>> + */
>> +struct ec_response_cec_get {
>> +	union {
>> +		uint8_t enable;
>> +		uint8_t address;
>> +	};
>> +} __packed;
>> +
>> +/* CEC parameters command */
>> +enum cec_command {
> 
> Same here: shouldn't all of this be prefixed with ec_ or EC_?

Exact, I will prefix them.

Thanks,
Neil

> 
> Regards,
> 
> 	Hans
> 
>> +	/* CEC reading, writing and events enable */
>> +	CEC_CMD_ENABLE,
>> +	/* CEC logical address  */
>> +	CEC_CMD_LOGICAL_ADDRESS,
>> +};
>> +
>> +/* Events from CEC to AP */
>> +enum mkbp_cec_event {
>> +	EC_MKBP_CEC_SEND_OK			= BIT(0),
>> +	EC_MKBP_CEC_SEND_FAILED			= BIT(1),
>> +};
>> +
>> +/*****************************************************************************/
>> +/*
>>   * Special commands
>>   *
>>   * These do not follow the normal rules for commands.  See each command for
>>
>