Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] platform/chrome: cros_ec_lpc: MEC access can return error code

[Ben Walsh]

Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 07:38:30AM +0100, Ben Walsh wrote:
>> @@ -425,8 +469,8 @@ static int cros_ec_lpc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  	 */
>>  	cros_ec_lpc_ops.read = cros_ec_lpc_mec_read_bytes;
>>  	cros_ec_lpc_ops.write = cros_ec_lpc_mec_write_bytes;
>> -	cros_ec_lpc_ops.read(EC_LPC_ADDR_MEMMAP + EC_MEMMAP_ID, 2, buf);
>> -	if (buf[0] != 'E' || buf[1] != 'C') {
>> +	ret = cros_ec_lpc_ops.read(EC_LPC_ADDR_MEMMAP + EC_MEMMAP_ID, 2, buf);
>> +	if (ret < 0 || buf[0] != 'E' || buf[1] != 'C') {
>
> Slight concern: if the read failed (-EBUSY, because of the lock contention
> failed for example), does it still need to probe for non-MEC devices?

That's a very good point! Negative ret here means there's really an
error, not just "no MEC".

I think it's better to return early with the return code (not -ENODEV)
in these cases.

>> @@ -436,9 +480,9 @@ static int cros_ec_lpc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  		/* Re-assign read/write operations for the non MEC variant */
>>  		cros_ec_lpc_ops.read = cros_ec_lpc_read_bytes;
>>  		cros_ec_lpc_ops.write = cros_ec_lpc_write_bytes;
>> -		cros_ec_lpc_ops.read(ec_lpc->mmio_memory_base + EC_MEMMAP_ID, 2,
>> -				     buf);
>> -		if (buf[0] != 'E' || buf[1] != 'C') {
>> +		ret = cros_ec_lpc_ops.read(ec_lpc->mmio_memory_base + EC_MEMMAP_ID, 2,
>> +					   buf);
>> +		if (ret < 0 || buf[0] != 'E' || buf[1] != 'C') {
>>  			dev_err(dev, "EC ID not detected\n");
>>  			return -ENODEV;
>
> Similar concern here: should `ret < 0` see as a -ENODEV?

As above, I think it should "return ret".