chrome-platform.lists.linux.dev archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>
To: "Dawid Niedźwiecki" <dawidn@google.com>
Cc: "Benson Leung" <bleung@chromium.org>,
	chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	chromeos-krk-upstreaming@google.com,
	"Łukasz Bartosik" <ukaszb@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/chrome: Add ChromeOS EC USB driver
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 09:16:47 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aG4zf8rGnmt5xVtG@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ_BA_AMaz0GWxOHJYws95h3fRdErghqUXPBkhrB1_eYegOJ0A@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 11:03:01AM +0200, Dawid Niedźwiecki wrote:
> > Given that:
> > - The crash you encountered is a common issue for all cros_ec_X drivers.
> > - I prefer to keep cros_ec_X drivers simple and similar rather than have
> >   something special (e.g. the memorized `struct cros_ec_device` in current
> >   cros_ec_usb) for fixing the crash.
> > Could you give [3] a try to see if it fixes the crash and also call
> > cros_ec_register()/cros_ec_unregister() everytime in the probe/disconnect?
> 
> I agree that the drivers should be simple and similar as much as possible.
> But to be precise, I think, it should behave in a similar way as much
> as possible
> (e.g. reboot EC device doesn't cause re-registering), not be implemented in the
> same way. That's why I believe the current implementation of the drivers follows
> the already present drivers in a better way.

FWIW: It depends on the bus details.  If you find my previous message, SCP
over RPMSG also re-registers everytime after the firmware reboot.

One challenge for current version: it makes the driver more complicated than
others.  E.g. what would be happening if some friend drivers try to access
`ec_dev` while the `cros_ec_usb_probe` is writing to `ec_usb` at a time?
It tries to manage the device's lifecycle one level upper than USB (don't
know what it should call, "session"?).

Another challenge: it doesn't call cros_ec_unregister() in its driver removal
entry.  What would be happening if someone re-inserts the module multiple
times?

  reply	other threads:[~2025-07-09  9:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-06-24 11:00 [PATCH] platform/chrome: Add ChromeOS EC USB driver Dawid Niedzwiecki
2025-06-27  7:53 ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2025-06-30 11:59   ` Dawid Niedźwiecki
2025-06-30 12:09     ` [PATCH v2] " Dawid Niedzwiecki
2025-07-01  8:56     ` [PATCH] " Tzung-Bi Shih
2025-07-01 10:29       ` Dawid Niedźwiecki
2025-07-02  3:58         ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2025-07-02  7:43           ` Dawid Niedźwiecki
2025-07-03 11:37             ` Tzung-Bi Shih
2025-07-04  9:03               ` Dawid Niedźwiecki
2025-07-09  9:16                 ` Tzung-Bi Shih [this message]
2025-07-11 16:00                   ` Dawid Niedźwiecki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=aG4zf8rGnmt5xVtG@google.com \
    --to=tzungbi@kernel.org \
    --cc=bleung@chromium.org \
    --cc=chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=chromeos-krk-upstreaming@google.com \
    --cc=dawidn@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ukaszb@chromium.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).