Hi Jingle,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 04:31:58PM +0800, jingle wrote:
> Hi Dmitry:
>
> 1.
>
> In this function elan_get_fwinfo().
>
> +static int elan_get_fwinfo(u16 ic_type, u8 iap_version, u8 pattern,
> + u16 *validpage_count, u32 *signature_address,
> + u16 *page_size)
> {
> - switch (ic_type) {
> + u16 type = pattern >= 0x01 ? ic_type : iap_version;
> +
> + switch (type) {
>
> This iap_version in pattern0 is read from this command
> ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION_CMD_OLD ,it is not from this command
> ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION.
> So u16 type = pattern >= 0x01 ? ic_type : iap_version; <- wrong
>
> 2. In this "static int elan_i2c_prepare_fw_update(struct i2c_client *client,
> u16 ic_type, u8 iap_version)" function.
> The ic is old pattern must be modify correct ic_type. (cmd is
> ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION)
I see. It looks like there is some confusion on my part between IAP
version, IC type, and the commands that we want to use. Please let me
know if I understand this correctly:
- For patterns >=1 (newer)
IAP version is retrieved with ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION_CMD
IC type is fetched with ETP_I2C_IC_TYPE_CMD
Version comes from ETP_I2C_NSM_VERSION_CMD
- For pattern 0 (old)
Before your patches
IAP version was using ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION_CMD (and you are saying
it is wrong)
Version comes from 1st byte of ETP_I2C_OSM_VERSION_CMD
IC type comes from 2nd byte of ETP_I2C_OSM_VERSION_CMD (and you are
saying it is some other bit of data - what is it then?)
After your patches
IAP version is retrieved with ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION_CMD_OLD
Version comes from 1st byte of ETP_I2C_OSM_VERSION_CMD
IC type is retrieved with ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION_CMD (should we rename
it then?)
So the difference is where the the IC type is coming from for old
patterns. However, as I mentioned, we have the following body of code:
static int elan_check_ASUS_special_fw(struct elan_tp_data *data)
{
if (data->ic_type == 0x0E) {
switch (data->product_id) {
case 0x05 ... 0x07:
case 0x09:
case 0x13:
return true;
}
} else if (data->ic_type == 0x08 && data->product_id == 0x26) {
/* ASUS EeeBook X205TA */
return true;
}
return false;
}
And before your patches ic_type here would be the 2nd byte of response
to ETP_I2C_OSM_VERSION_CMD for older devices and my concern that
replacing it with data from ETP_I2C_IAP_VERSION_CMD would break these
checks.
We need to reconcile what we have in this function with what you are
proposing for firmware update code.
Thanks,
Dmitry
