Re: [PATCH 2/3] mfd: cros_ec: Use the proper size when looking at the cros_ec_i2c result

[Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>]

On Wed, 02 Jul 2014, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >
> >> We know how many bytes the EC should be sending us (which is also the
> >> number of bytes transferred) and also how many bytes the EC actually
> >> wanted to send to us.  When computing the checksum and copying back
> >> data let's make sure we take the lesser of the two of those.  We'll
> >> also complain if the EC tried to send us too many bytes.  The EC
> >> sending us too few bytes is legit for when we send the EC an invalid
> >> command.
> >>
> >> This is based on similar code in cros_ec_spi.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/mfd/cros_ec_i2c.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
> >>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> >
> > Is this patch orthogonal i.e. can it be applied without the other two
> > patches?
> 
> Yes.  If patch 3/3 had worked out then it would have required patch #1
> for proper functioning and patch #2 (this patch) to avoid an ugly
> error message in the log.  ...but patch #1 and this patch both can
> stand on their own and can be applied.

Very well, patch applied than.

Clause: There is a chance that this patch might not be seen in -next
for ~24-48hrs.  If it's not there by 72hrs, feel free to poke.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog