Hi Brian, On 23/7/20 2:43, Brian Norris wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:13 PM Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:50 PM Brian Norris <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Other than perhaps taking a lesson not to propagate -ENOTSUPP, I don't >>> think this series should block on that, as this is a bugfix IMO. >> >> My patch will return -EOPNOTSUPP for EC_RES_INVALID_COMMAND, so maybe >> you could do the same. In my latest version (not yet submitted) I >> extracted the conversion into a separate function, so if your patch is >> accepted now I can just add another patch on top of it to start using >> that function. > > Sure, I can use EOPNOTSUPP in v2. >
Yes, please, can you send a v2 using EOPNOTSUPP > BTW, the error code is completely internal to cros_ec_proto.c in my > patch, so it seems even less-related to your series, unless I got > refactor cros_ec_get_host_event_wake_mask() to use > cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status() instead of send_command(). I'm actually not > sure why we don't do that, now that I think about it... > > So WDYT? Should I rebase on your eventual v3 and refactor to > cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status()? Or (re)submit this first, and add one more > cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status() usage for you to tweak in your series? > No need to rebase on top of Guenter patches, as I plan to pick your patches first. Regards, Enric > I don't mind a lot either way, except that I would like to port this > to older kernels soon. > > Brian >
