linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] platform/chrome: cros_ec: Send host event for prepare/complete

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

Date:   Tue, 23 Aug 2022 02:49:19 +0000
From:   Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
To:     Tim Van Patten <timvp@...gle.com>
Cc:     rrangel@...omium.org, robbarnes@...gle.com,
        Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] platform/chrome: cros_ec: Send host event for
 prepare/complete

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 10:21:47AM -0600, Tim Van Patten wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:08 PM Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 11:40:08AM -0600, Tim Van Patten wrote:
> > > Update cros_ec_lpc_pm_ops to call cros_ec_lpc_prepare() during PM
> > > .prepare() and cros_ec_lpc_complete() during .complete(). This allows the
> > > EC to log entry/exit of AP's suspend/resume more accurately.
> >
> > As what I commented on [1], the term "host event" in the commit title is
> > confusing.  Also, as this is a cros_ec_lpc specific patch, please change
> > the prefix.
> 
> I've updated the prefix to "cros_ec_lpc" and the title/description to
> indicate that this CL moves when the host event is sent to
> .prepare()/.complete().
> 
> > [1]: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/chrome-platform/patch/20220706205136.v2.1.Ic7a7c81f880ab31533652e0928aa6e687bb268b5@changeid/#24934911

I'm not sure if any unclear.  "host event" is a terminology for CrOS EC.
The usage here is confusing.

> >
> > > -static int cros_ec_lpc_resume(struct device *dev)
> > > +static void cros_ec_lpc_complete(struct device *dev)
> > >  {
> > >       struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > +     int ret;
> > > +
> > > +     ret = cros_ec_resume(ec_dev);
> > >
> > > -     return cros_ec_resume(ec_dev);
> > > +     dev_info(dev, "EC resume completed: ret = %d\n", ret);
> >
> > cros_ec_resume() always returns 0.
> 
> Yes, it always returns 0 today, but that may not be the case forever.
>  While "ret" is not returned by cros_ec_resume() today, it's possible
> for it to be non-zero and someone may update cros_ec_resume() to
> return that status.

Does it really need to print if `ret` is always 0?