Attention is currently required from: Michał Żygowski, Angel Pons. Nico Huber has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55714 )
Change subject: acpi_ec: Implement basic ACPI embedded controller API ......................................................................
Patch Set 4:
(4 comments)
File acpi_ec.h:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55714/comment/3bdd0749_0977fb56 PS4, Line 8: * the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License. It would be nice if you could convince TUXEDO to put it under GPLv2+. We try to suppress GPLv2-only to make libflashrom more useful.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55714/comment/e19e6def_1052951e PS4, Line 26: /* Standard ports */ : #define EC_DATA 0x62 : #define EC_CONTROL 0x66 /* Read status, write commands */ : : /* Standard commands */ : #define EC_CMD_READ_REG 0x80 /* Read register's value */ : #define EC_CMD_WRITE_REG 0x81 /* Write register's value */ : : /* Some of the status bits */ : #define EC_STS_IBF (1 << 1) /* EC's input buffer full (host can't write) */ : #define EC_STS_OBF (1 << 0) /* EC's output buffer full (host can read) */ : Do these need to be exported?
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55714/comment/40ca7034_40eeb849 PS4, Line 41: bool ec_wait_for_ibuf(uint8_t control_port, unsigned int max_checks); : bool ec_wait_for_obuf(uint8_t control_port, unsigned int max_checks); Do these need to be exported?
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55714/comment/75e0c4f0_9bf972f1 PS4, Line 44: bool ec_write_cmd(uint8_t control_port, uint8_t cmd, unsigned int max_checks); : bool ec_read_byte(uint8_t control_port, uint8_t data_port, uint8_t *data, : unsigned int max_checks); : bool ec_write_byte(uint8_t control_port, uint8_t data_port, uint8_t data, : unsigned int max_checks); : If these are part of an `acpi_ec` API and ACPI standardized the ports, why allow to specify the port? Does the ITE driver talk on multiple interfaces at once?