Attention is currently required from: Michał Żygowski, Angel Pons, Michael Niewöhner. 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 8:
(2 comments)
File acpi_ec.h:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55714/comment/5cbc35a9_b182327e 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);
Done
Still there.
File acpi_ec.h:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/55714/comment/867b2d82_c7ca7902 PS1, Line 41: bool ec_wait_for_ibuf(uint8_t control_port); : bool ec_wait_for_obuf(uint8_t control_port, unsigned int max_checks);
The erase command required longer timeout on output buffer flag. […]
So, I've been looking through the code of the follow ups. There is indeed only this one case where a non-default value is passed. That you need a higher timeout there is clear. But why do you need a lower one for every- thing else?
The calls would look much cleaner without this parameter, or at least by making use of the default by passing 0. And we wouldn't have to expose EC_MAX_STATUS_CHECKS in any case.
-
Nico Huber (Code Review)