From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCHv9 14/15] cec: s5p-cec: Add s5p-cec driver Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 23:32:07 +0100 Message-ID: <20151005223207.GM21513@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Hans Verkuil Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, thomas@tommie-lie.de, sean@mess.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, lars@opdenkamp.eu, kamil@wypas.org, Hans Verkuil List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 03:44:43PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > + if (status & CEC_STATUS_TX_DONE) { > + if (status & CEC_STATUS_TX_ERROR) { > + dev_dbg(cec->dev, "CEC_STATUS_TX_ERROR set\n"); > + cec->tx = STATE_ERROR; > + } else { > + dev_dbg(cec->dev, "CEC_STATUS_TX_DONE\n"); > + cec->tx = STATE_DONE; > + } > + s5p_clr_pending_tx(cec); > + } Your CEC implementation seems to be written around the idea that there are only two possible outcomes from a CEC message - "done" and "error", which get translated to: > + case STATE_DONE: > + cec_transmit_done(cec->adap, CEC_TX_STATUS_OK); > + cec->tx = STATE_IDLE; > + break; > + case STATE_ERROR: > + cec_transmit_done(cec->adap, CEC_TX_STATUS_RETRY_TIMEOUT); > + cec->tx = STATE_IDLE; "okay" and "retry_timeout". So, if we have an adapter which can report (eg) a NACK, we have to report it as the obscure "retry timeout" status? Why this obscure naming - why can't we have something that uses the terminology in the spec? -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.