From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0789EC433EF for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:25:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S245515AbiA0TZ6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:25:58 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34812 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232674AbiA0TZ5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:25:57 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x1029.google.com (mail-pj1-x1029.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A3EEC061714 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:25:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1029.google.com with SMTP id r59so3973785pjg.4 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:25:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=lKMnBnjolln8U2OTn9rawxeDav9p/HtInvuZ+X5EaeQ=; b=Q0VTPoD8a46YDRFUDAcIZ70+aI+oG0Rztj+ZExTYze1afoK6XF+ASaguYxGEYiUUL0 Ynd/IQVlEjwq87CTseTucRSnV4733aQAipNf+WoVYWf/Xs20Mh9L4gvQXl8ALo92Xy+f voy1bxmJQBYG0stSNj+1m8HVgO/J1g20CdM30= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=lKMnBnjolln8U2OTn9rawxeDav9p/HtInvuZ+X5EaeQ=; b=ISSYekhAqzhapoSyZdBPypIh5iZ6We7T1xC0kvmntK3I1Hk5tlKbBsrj7u9pkdqDG6 y91Lgm147y64ZDDFbIbK79R18P29gQW2wDTTeTEa2Li7Pa8V4kZDiwdXwDro3yJB38eA 4NP/qFG/05fKc1luCi3CQJ7c3xhnjdFVOp+svw/K2ftToNzSSNyonF2ibcxxjuPTL63B Xui7wqtgbxSs55QiLsOBJMTpeJH+uMljw9uBJjVPnTn8MGE+vNSGziWHoAy89sS+aFHA WyuufZ5XXaZl/c8lQ/AGvrnHNUBMJkNjycVsBa4ovB2DCjsLy7ZvWR661oOevnJbo9qG /eYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531U1tl08Fa6xaGF7JfU26i6AlOj7k/NIXwqAjAK+gP8/FHMh5ue TyAV+DCyUR1q8iUazN/8A83gzw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdTl1/jHPJyn3r0Fa4ONLZanW1FZvHfsJdU32AJ/Xgo3AO1+ORPPCj7/ufn9RsJr6ofCoBBQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:6948:: with SMTP id k8mr4868559plt.136.1643311556653; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:25:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from chromium.org (157.214.185.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.185.214.157]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j18sm6695551pfj.13.2022.01.27.11.25.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:25:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:25:55 +0000 From: Prashant Malani To: Dustin Howett Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Benson Leung , Guenter Roeck , Tzung-Bi Shih , Michael Niksa , aaboagye@chromium.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] platform/chrome: cros_ec_lpcs: reserve the MEC LPC I/O ports first Message-ID: References: <20220126180020.15873-1-dustin@howett.net> <20220126180020.15873-3-dustin@howett.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org +Aseda, On Jan 27 13:18, Dustin Howett wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 12:55 PM Prashant Malani wrote: > > > > Hi Dustin, > > > > I can't find this update in the EC code base [1]. Is there any reason > > you are not adding this, or is the change in flight (or in some other > > location)? > > > > [1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform/ec/+/refs/heads/main/include/ec_commands.h > > > > Hey Prashant, > > The host communication adapters in the EC repo don't support the MEC > protocol at all, > so it did not seem necessary to bring these changes over. I'd be happy What source do Framework laptop ECs (MECs?) compile their EC firmware from? > to do so, of > course, if that is desirable. > > My understanding (well, my guess) is that protocol support was never > added because > it is already implemented here in cros_ec_lpcs. Userland I/O port > access is(?) less desirable > than having this driver handle it. Yeah, I wasn't thinking about userland i/o port access, but just having this behaviour/different I/O port mapping described in the EC code base too.