On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 07:20:32PM +0100, Ben Walsh wrote:
>
> 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.
Writing length 0 bytes to cros_ec_lpc_io_bytes_mec() changes the
function to basically this:
cros_ec_lpc_mec_lock();
/* Initialize I/O at desired address */
cros_ec_lpc_mec_emi_write_address(offset, access);
cros_ec_lpc_mec_unlock();
return 0;
I was a little concerned about the cros_ec_lpc_mec_emi_write_address()
But I don't know this subsystem at all so it might be fine.
Perhaps the cleanest thing is to delete the length == 0 check in
cros_ec_lpc_mec_in_range() and add one to the start of
cros_ec_lpc_io_bytes_mec().
I think that's a good solution.
regards,
dan carpenter
