Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 05:51:39PM +0100, Ben Walsh wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for fixing this! Unfortunately `in_range` returns -EINVAL if
>> length == 0 (see the definition of `fwk_ec_lpc_mec_in_range`). I'm sure
>> this broke something in my testing, but I can't find what it was now.
>
> I don't think fwk_ec_lpc_mec_in_range() is upstream. This email is the
> only reference I can find to it on the internet.
Sorry, I mean cros_ec_lpc_mec_in_range().
> int cros_ec_lpc_mec_in_range(unsigned int offset, unsigned int length)
> {
> if (length == 0)
> - return -EINVAL;
> + return 0;
>
> if (WARN_ON(mec_emi_base == 0 || mec_emi_end == 0))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> But I don't like how subtle that is. Probably adding a check for
> for if (length == 0) to the to cros_ec_lpc_mec_read_bytes() seems
> like the best option. I guess option 2 is the best option.
Thanks. I'll check out Tzung-Bi's suggestions as well before we decide.
