lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 4/7] platform/chrome: Add Chrome OS EC userspace device interface
From
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
<javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk> wrote:
> Hello Olof,
>
> Thanks a lot for your feedback.
>
> On 02/26/2015 02:13 AM, Gwendal Grignou wrote:
>> Olof,
>>
>> I think the way Javier did it is fine, the 'major' of the ioctl is
>> 0xEC, from ':'.
>>
>> Gwendal.
>>
>
> As Gwendal said, I deliberately changed the IOCTL mayor number to
> make it different in both kernels.
>
> downstream:
>
> #define CROS_EC_DEV_IOC ':'
> #define CROS_EC_DEV_IOCXCMD _IOWR(':', 0, struct cros_ec_command)
> #define CROS_EC_DEV_IOCRDMEM _IOWR(':', 1, struct cros_ec_readmem)
>
> mainline:
>
> #define CROS_EC_DEV_IOC 0xEC
> #define CROS_EC_DEV_IOCXCMD _IOWR(CROS_EC_DEV_IOC, 0, struct cros_ec_command)
> #define CROS_EC_DEV_IOCRDMEM _IOWR(CROS_EC_DEV_IOC, 1, struct cros_ec_readmem)
>
> I can also do what you suggested and keep ':' as the major and use 2/3
> as command numbers but I just think 0xEC is a much nicer major for the
> interface to talk with the Embedded Controller and it was available ;)

No, changing major is definitely sufficient and an acceptable way to
do it -- I had missed that you did so.

Thanks, Javier, Gwendal, I'll apply this today and push out. Gwendal
has been giving it a go on a machine here too so I'll check with him
before I push.


-Olof


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-26 19:01    [W:0.044 / U:0.924 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site