Attention is currently required from: Angel Pons.

View Change

4 comments:

• Commit Message:

  • Patch Set #1, Line 11: e

    typo: c

    Done

• File acpi_ec.h:

  • Patch Set #1, Line 41:

    bool ec_wait_for_ibuf(uint8_t control_port);
    bool ec_wait_for_obuf(uint8_t control_port, unsigned int max_checks);
    

    Any reason why only one of these has the `max_checks` parameter?

    The erase command required longer timeout on output buffer flag. The input buffer did not require any non-default timeouts so only one had the additional parameters. Added the max_checks to `ec_wait_for_ibuf` too fro consistency.

• File acpi_ec.c:

  • Patch Set #1, Line 84: ec_wait_for_ibuf

    obuf?

    Yes, it should be obuf. The reference implementation had ibuf which is probably a bug and we missed it.

  • Patch Set #1, Line 72:

    
    
    bool ec_read_reg(uint8_t address, uint8_t *data)
    {
    	if (!ec_wait_for_ibuf(EC_CONTROL))
    		return false;
    	OUTB(EC_CMD_READ_REG, EC_CONTROL);
    
    	if (!ec_wait_for_ibuf(EC_CONTROL))
    		return false;
    	OUTB(address, EC_DATA);
    
    	if (!ec_wait_for_ibuf(EC_CONTROL))
    		return false;
    	*data = INB(EC_DATA);
    
    	return true;
    }
    
    bool ec_write_reg(uint8_t address, uint8_t data)
    {
    	if (!ec_wait_for_ibuf(EC_CONTROL))
    		return false;
    	OUTB(EC_CMD_WRITE_REG, EC_CONTROL);
    
    	if (!ec_wait_for_ibuf(EC_CONTROL))
    		return false;
    	OUTB(address, EC_DATA);
    
    	if (!ec_wait_for_ibuf(EC_CONTROL))
    		return false;
    	OUTB(data, EC_DATA);
    
    	return true;
    }
    

    Why not use the functions you defined above? […]

    No idea why we didn't do that ;) Applied the suggestion.

To view, visit change 55714. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.