[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fb3a50bde8975ea6843508a3c4220ee8013069e1.camel@v3.sk>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 18:12:56 +0100
From: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
James Cameron <quozl@...top.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/15] Platform: OLPC: Move EC-specific functionality
out from x86
On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 13:23 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 7:59 PM Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk> wrote:
> > Move the olpc-ec driver away from the X86 OLPC platform so that it could be
> > used by the ARM based laptops too. Notably, the driver for the OLPC battery,
> > which is also used on the ARM models, builds on this driver's interface.
> >
> > It is actually plaform independent: the OLPC EC commands with their argument
> > and responses are mostly the same despite the delivery mechanism is
> > different.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk>
> > Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
> > #define OLPC_F_PRESENT 0x01
> > #define OLPC_F_DCON 0x02
> > -#define OLPC_F_EC_WIDE_SCI 0x04
>
> Still same concern, i.e. if the initially added definitions are
> coupled together by some reason, why we split them?
> As I told either move all, or none or put in commit message how
> decoupling would benefit.
I'm not moving this one -- I'm deleting it, because it's no longer used
or useful. I don't mind keeping it there if you think it should stay
though.
> > + /* EC version 0x5f adds support for wide SCI mask */
> > + if (ec->version >= 0x5f) {
> > + __be16 ec_word = cpu_to_be16(bits);
> > +
> > + return olpc_ec_cmd(EC_WRITE_EXT_SCI_MASK, (void *) &ec_word, 2, NULL, 0);
>
> No space is needed in "(void *)&ec_word".
>
> > + } else {
> > + unsigned char ec_byte = bits & 0xff;
>
> Shouldn't be u8?
>
> > + return olpc_ec_cmd(EC_WRITE_SCI_MASK, &ec_byte, 1, NULL, 0);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(olpc_ec_mask_write);
> > +int olpc_ec_sci_query(u16 *sci_value)
> > +{
> > + struct olpc_ec_priv *ec = ec_priv;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON(!ec))
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + /* EC version 0x5f adds support for wide SCI mask */
> > + if (ec->version >= 0x5f) {
> > + __be16 ec_word;
> > +
> > + ret = olpc_ec_cmd(EC_EXT_SCI_QUERY, NULL, 0, (void *)&ec_word, 2);
> > + if (ret == 0)
> > + *sci_value = be16_to_cpu(ec_word);
> > + } else {
> > + unsigned char ec_byte;
>
> u8?
>
> > +
> > + ret = olpc_ec_cmd(EC_SCI_QUERY, NULL, 0, &ec_byte, 1);
> > + if (ret == 0)
> > + *sci_value = ec_byte;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(olpc_ec_sci_query);
I'll follow up with fixes for the above.
Thanks.
Lubo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists