Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] pwm: cros-ec: Accept more error codes from cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status

[Uwe Kleine-KÃnig]

On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 03:00:59PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Since commit c5cd2b47b203 ("platform/chrome: cros_ec_proto: Report command
> not supported") we can no longer assume that cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status()
> reports -EPROTO for all errors returned by the EC itself. A follow-up
> patch will change cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status() to report additional errors
> reported by the EC as distinguished Linux error codes.
> 
> Handle this change by no longer assuming that only -EPROTO is used
> to report all errors returned by the EC itself. Instead, support both
> the old and the new error codes.
> 
> Cc: Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Yu-Hsuan Hsu <yuhsuan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Prashant Malani <pmalani@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v3: Added patch
> 
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c
> index 09c08dee099e..ef05fba1bd37 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c
> @@ -213,20 +213,27 @@ static int cros_ec_num_pwms(struct cros_ec_device *ec)
>  		u32 result = 0;
>  
>  		ret = __cros_ec_pwm_get_duty(ec, i, &result);
> -		/* We want to parse EC protocol errors */
> -		if (ret < 0 && !(ret == -EPROTO && result))
> -			return ret;
> -
>  		/*
>  		 * We look for SUCCESS, INVALID_COMMAND, or INVALID_PARAM
>  		 * responses; everything else is treated as an error.
>  		 */

This comment is at least misleading now.

> -		if (result == EC_RES_INVALID_COMMAND)
> +		switch (ret) {
> +		case -EOPNOTSUPP:	/* invalid command */
>  			return -ENODEV;

My first reaction here was to wonder why -EOPNOTSUPP isn't passed to the
upper layer. OK, this is a loop to test the number of available devices.

> -		else if (result == EC_RES_INVALID_PARAM)
> +		case -EINVAL:		/* invalid parameter */
>  			return i;
> -		else if (result)
> +		case -EPROTO:
> +			/* Old or new error return code: Handle both */
> +			if (result == EC_RES_INVALID_COMMAND)
> +				return -ENODEV;
> +			else if (result == EC_RES_INVALID_PARAM)
> +				return i;

If I understand correctly this surprising calling convention (output
parameter is filled even though the function returned an error) is the
old one that is to be fixed.

>  			return -EPROTO;
> +		default:
> +			if (ret < 0)
> +				return ret;
> +			break;
> +		}
>  	}
>  

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature